Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 830 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra

2006-12-07

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2006
JUDGMENT Heard learned Addl. Government Advocate for the appellant and the judgment is as follows : 2. Perused the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal in S.T. No.51/8 of 1992. 3. According to the allegation of the prosecutrix (P.W.9) on 17.11.1991 at about 10.30 p.m. both the accused-respondents came towards her house, i.e., a rented house under her occupa¬tion. On seeing them she got scared and ran to the adjoining premises where there was a tailoring shop. The occupants of the tailoring shop were present including the owner and the workers. Accused person came upon the tailoring shop and knocked at the door and threatened to forcibly open the same unless it was opened and at that the inmates of that shop opened the door and thereafter on the point of a knife accused persons dragged her to a mango tope and raped her one after the other. She returned to the house and reported the incident to her husband, who, in turn stated that he was assaulted by the accused persons while the attempt for opening the door of the tailoring shop was going on. On 19.11.1992 at 8 p.m. the incident was reported at the Motanga Police Station, the prosecutrix and her husband were examined by the doctor on the following day so also accused persons on subse¬quent dates. The Doctor who proved the report on such examination of the prosecutrix, her husband and the accused persons was examined as P.W.8 and relevant documents have been marked Exts. 4 to 9 respectively. The F.I.R. has been proved as Ext.11. Husband of the prosecutrix was examined as P.W.10. The occupants and the workers of the tailoring shops and a nearby resident were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6. 4. Accused denied to the charges framed for the offence 376(2)(g) and 323 I.P.C. In addition, the accused persons took the plea that prosecutrix is the niece of P.W.10, inasmuch as, he is the cousin of her mother being the son of her paternal uncle. 4. Accused denied to the charges framed for the offence 376(2)(g) and 323 I.P.C. In addition, the accused persons took the plea that prosecutrix is the niece of P.W.10, inasmuch as, he is the cousin of her mother being the son of her paternal uncle. Relationship of husband and wife between P.W. No.9 to 10 being not agreed upon by the relatives of both the families, they were living on rented premises in the occurrence village and that on the request of the father of P.W. No.10 they had gone to request P.W.10 to return to his family and further that because of such conduct of the accused such a false case has been foisted against them. 5. In course of the trial, P.W.8 deposed that he did not find any sign of rape while examining P.W.9. P.W. No.10 had sus¬tained four linear injuries (abrasions and bruise) which were simple in nature and that there was no sign of recent intercourse by either of the accused persons. The inmates of the tailoring shop including the workers declined to have any knowledge about the occurrence described by P.W. No.9. Their evidence in that respect remains unshaken notwithstanding cross-examination by the prosecution. P.Ws.9 and 10 in course of cross-examination made attempt to deny their inter-relationship as niece and uncle and gave evasive reply when questions were put to establish their relationship. P.Ws.9 and 10 being conscious of the delay in lodging the F.I.R. unsuccessfully tried to explain the same on the ground of P.W.10 having sustained injury and P.W.9 being under shock on being ravished by the accused persons. For cogent and sufficient reasons trial Court found the aforesaid explana¬tion of P.Ws.9 and 10 to be unsatisfactory and there was want of corroboration to the wild allegation made by them against the accused persons and under such circumstance benefit of doubt was granted and both the accused persons were acquitted. 6. After careful perusal of the evidence on record and the judgment delivered by the trial Court and the contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly, the Gov¬ernment Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.