Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 280 (ORI)

Bikram @ Bikod Kindo v. State of Orissa

2007-04-18

A.S.NAIDU

body2007
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU,J. : This Jail Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 09.11.1998 passed by the Addl. C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela convicting the appel¬lants under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C and sentencing them to under¬go R.I for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of fine to undergo RI for one month in S.T Case No.249/74 of 1997. 2. On 16.7.1997 the informant Pramila Sahoo along with her friend Kuntala Kindo had been to Bedavyas to witness the Return Car festival. As there was rush in the bus, they could not board the same at the relevant time. On the request of the informant to Ranjan and Kundu of her village the said persons dropped her near Shiva Temple of her village and went to their respective houses. The informant thereafter proceeded towards her house while some boys standing on the road namely Bikod Kindo - accused No.1, Dharmendra Kishan accused No.4 and Punia Majhi -accused No.2 and Dutia Toppo accused No.3 intercepted her on the way. They dragged her to a place under a tamarind tree, threatened her to assault and even to kill and throw her on the railway line. The accused persons forcibly opened her salwar suit - and chadi. Other ac¬cused persons, namely, Udaya Lakra, Dutia Tappo and Raju Ekka reached there. In spite of her protest all the accused persons one after another had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The informant, it was stated, could not help herself as she was frightened. At about 11.00 P.M. accused Bikod, Punia and Dharmen¬dra brought her by crossing the road and allowed her to go to her house. Due to rape, informant’s thighs were swollen and she sustained pain and injuries on her private part. She also sus¬tained injuries on her right hand, as the bangles were broken. After returning house she disclosed the aforesaid incident to her parents. On the following morning she also disclosed the incident to her elder sister and mother. On return of her father from the field, she and her elder sister accompanied her father to Kalunga Police Outpost and she lodged report at 8.00 P.M. Her report was reduced to writing by the police officer and she put her signa¬ture thereon after finding the same to be correct. On return of her father from the field, she and her elder sister accompanied her father to Kalunga Police Outpost and she lodged report at 8.00 P.M. Her report was reduced to writing by the police officer and she put her signa¬ture thereon after finding the same to be correct. On the basis of said F.I.R a case under Section 376 (2)(g)/506 I.P.C was registered at the Brahmanitaranga Police Station. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, exam¬ined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The victim was examined by a Medical Officer on police requisition. Some broken glass bangles as well as the wearing apparels of the victim were seized from the spot. The accused persons were arrested and forwarded to Court. They were examined by a medical officer on police requisition. The wearing clothes of the accused persons were seized by the I.O. The I.O also collected the blood samples, saliva, semen in respect of all the accused persons and pubic hair and vaginal swab of the victim and got the same examined by a government medical officer. 3. The plea of the accused persons was completely denial. To substantiate its case, prosecution got as many as nine wit¬nesses examined on its behalf and exhibited 17 documents. On behalf of the accused-appellants only one witness was examined and no document was exhibited. 4. After threadbare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons had committed gang rape on victim Pramila Sahoo in the evening of 16.7.1997. It found them guilty of having committed offence under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C and convicting them thereunder sentenced them each to undergo R.I for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of fine to undergo further R.I for one month. 5. Heard learned counsel for the State at length. Perused the materials available on record. P.W.1 the victim lady in her deposition has narrated the incident in details. Though she was cross-examined at length nothing could be elicited from her to disbelieve her statement in Court. The statement of P. W.1 has been corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 7. P.W.3 also supports the case of P.W.1. The broken bangles and other materials seized by the police also throw some light with regard to the incident. Though she was cross-examined at length nothing could be elicited from her to disbelieve her statement in Court. The statement of P. W.1 has been corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 7. P.W.3 also supports the case of P.W.1. The broken bangles and other materials seized by the police also throw some light with regard to the incident. The medical officer who had examined the victim P.W.1 had opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 might have been caused by hard and blunt object within 48 hours of her medical examination. He also noticed some injuries on the breasts, chest, face and thighs of the victim. That apart the statement of victim girl to her mother, sister and brother shortly after the incident complaining against the accused persons corroborates her evidence under Sections 8 and 157 of the Evidence Act. The plea of assault as advanced by the accused persons through D.W.1 cannot be accepted. 6. After perusing the entire materials including the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has properly discussed the same and has arrived at right conclusion. There is no apparent error in the impugned judgment on the face of record. Law is also well settled that conviction in a rape case can be based only upon the solitary statement of the victim, if the same is trust¬worthy. In the present case the statement of P.W.1 which is very elaborate, gets corroborated by medical evidence and other mate¬rials available and is found to be trustworthy. However, as regards sentence, this Court finds that the appellants were arrested in the year 1997 since when they are in custody. Consid¬ering that the appellants were very young at the time of the alleged incident and the other circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the substantive sentence awarded against them by the trial Court may be reduced to be period of imprisonment already undergone by them while enhancing the fine amount. 7. Accordingly this Court while confirming the order of conviction of the appellants modifies the substantive sentence passed against them by the trial court by reducing the period of R.I from ten years to the period of imprisonment already under¬gone by them. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I for six months. 7. Accordingly this Court while confirming the order of conviction of the appellants modifies the substantive sentence passed against them by the trial court by reducing the period of R.I from ten years to the period of imprisonment already under¬gone by them. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I for six months. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith after the fine is paid by them. On realization of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- be paid by the Court below to the victim, P.W.1. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of. JCA disposed of.