It was alleged that thereafter the respondent forcibly pulled her down on the ground and in spite of her resistance companymitted rape on her inside that jungle by raising the saree of P.W.1 and also removing the pad which P.W.1 was using as she was having her monthly menstruation.
Though it was alleged that P.W.1 was raped during her menstrual period and that there was profuse bleeding due to rape, the wearing apparel of PW 1 did number companytain any blood stain, as would appear from the chemical examination report Ext.
Due to rape on her P.W.1 had profused bleeding.
To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited eleven documents.
Prosecution version sans unnecessary details is as follows On the basis of an FIR lodged on 4 9 1993 by Dasamu Bhatra P.W.4 alleging that on the said day at 1.00 p.m while his wife P.W.1 was companylecting fire wood in a nearby jungle known as Dobari Jungle, the respondent who was companylecting company dung in the said jungle told her that a big piece of wood was lying nearby in the jungle.
W.1 is the alleged victim.
O.I.C. of Kodinga P.S. PW 8 the other investigating officer who had submitted charge sheet in the case.
Hari Mirgan DW 2 who deposed about the land dispute which was reported to him by the appellant.
No reason has been indicated to discard their evidence.
P.W.1 however refused to go there.
S. Venkataswamy P.W.7 the A.S.I of Police Kosagumuda Outpost before whom P.W.4 had lodged the FIR and was one of the investigating officers.
383 of 1993 was registered.
She reported the matter to her husband W.4 who lodged the report before police at 6 p.m., the very day.
On the basis of such report, G.R. Case No.
Damuru Pujari P.W.5 is another person before whom also P.W.1 had narrated the alleged incident.
Out of the defence witnesses, Laikhana Bhatra DW 1 who deposed about the dispute between the appellant and PW 4 over excavation of a drain on the land of the appellant and the quarrel ensuing thereafter.
She companyroborated the FIR story.
While the appellant was companymitting the crime, Lachhminath Bhatra PW2 arrived at the spot, seeing whom the appellant left P.W.1 and fled away.
P.W.4 was Dasamu Bhatra P.W.1s husband before whom P.W.1 stated to have narrated the alleged incident whereafter he had reported the matter to the police.
Lachhminath Bhatra PW2 who was stated to have seen the alleged occurrence.
Lachhma Bhatrani P.W. 3 a resident of the village and was near the spot of occurrence before whom P.W.1 was stated to have narrated the incident soon thereafter.
After investigation prosecution submitted charge sheet against the respondent who faced the trial.
Two witnesses were examined by the defence.
The plea of the respondent was companyplete denial.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
He further stated that a day prior to the alleged occurrence, he had dispute with informant P.W.4 and his wife the alleged victim P.W.1 regarding landed property which had culminated in a quarrel and in order to harass the respondent the case had been falsely foisted against him.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court directing acquittal of the respondent of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 in short the Atrocities Act .
The respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court questioning his companyviction as recorded by learned Special Judge cum Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore.
Learned companynsel for the appellant State referred to the evidence of PWs 12 and submitted that the High Court was number justified in directing acquittal.
The Lady Assistant Surgeon P.W.6 who had examined the alleged victim on police requisition.
On surmises and companyjectures the High Court has directed acquittal.
There is numberappearance on behalf of the accused in spite of service of numberice.
