IMPORTANT POINT
The Supreme Court while hearing appeal by special leave cannot consider and re-appraise the evidence once again in the face of concurrent findings of facts arrived at by all the courts below.

JUDGMENT

B.C. Ray, J. - Special leave granted Arguments heard.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated July 17, 1990 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Criminal Revision No. 382 of 1986 dismissing the revision and affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. The prosecution case in short is that on 19th March, 1983 at about 7 p.m. while the victim girl Srimanthini Samal (P.W.2) was going to the house of Ram a Samal, for study, the appellant Gagan informed her that the other appellant Prafulla and others had tied her tutor Rabi Babu in a nearby mango grove and her father was present there. Having believed the version of the appellant Gagan, her agnatic uncle, she accompanied him and ultimately the appellants forcibly took her to a lonely house in hills where she was made to sit on a chair and the appellant Gagan forcibly thrushed in her mouth a liquor bottle and she was made to drink the liquor. Thereafter both the appellants after having undressed her committed sexual assault on her. Then she was brought to express highway from where she was bodily lifted to a truck standing there and left her in the truck. While the said truck was unloading materials near village Kurujanga, the victim girl stealthily left the truck and concealed her presence near a fense. Subsequently, one Purusottam Mohanty rescued her and brought her to his house and then she was left to the house of one Niranjan Rout (P.W.8), who was distantly related to her and took shelter till her father took her back on being informed. On the information lodged by her father (P.W. 1) in the police station of Badachana a case under sections 363 and 376 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused appellants and after investigation the I.O\sent the victim girl as well as the appellant for medical examination and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants to stand their trial. The pleas of the appellants were a total denial of the prosecution case. The appellant Prafulla took the plea that there was a marriage proposal of the victim girl with him but when it was disclosed that she had illicit relationship with her tutor Rabi, he refused to marry her for which this false case was foisted against him. The plea of the other appellant Gagan as suggested to the informant, was that due to his previous enmity he was falsely implicated with the alleged crime.

3. The appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after considering the evidences on record rejected the defence pleas, and found that the accused appellants committed rape on the victim girl without her consent relying on the provisions of Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act, and convicted them under section 376(2) (g), I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused appellants to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years considering the young age of the appellants. The Assistant Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the appellants from the charge under section 366, I.P.C. as the victim girl was more than 16 years of age .at the time of occurrence.

4. Against this judgment and order of conviction the appellants filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1984 in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The Additional Sessions Judge considered the pleas of the appellants as well as duly scrutinized and appraised the evidences of record and found that the accused appellants committed rape on the victim girl without her consent and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the. Trial Court dismissing the appeal.

5. The appellants thereafter filed a Revision Case being Criminal Revision No. 382 of 1986 in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack against the said judgment and order passed by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The High Court duly considered and appraised the evidences of all the 9 P.Ws. including the deposition of the victim girl