JUDGMENT :

S. Pujahari, J.

In this appeal, the appellant who has been convicted under Sections 341, 506, 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”) and directed to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months, S.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 1 year respectively, calls in question the propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No.11 of 2008.

2. Facts, briefly stated, are that on 01.05.2007 at around 6 p.m., the victim (P.W.1) accompanied with her friend (P.W.2) had been to Pakhaniapali ridge of village-Sanajhankarpali to answer call of nature. While enroute home after attending such call of nature, it is alleged, the present appellant and his erstwhile co-accused – Sanjib Malik appeared at the scene. While Sanjib Malik forcibly carried away the victim (P.W.1) to a lonely placed after gagging her mouth, the appellant obstructed P.W.2 from raising alarm to attract persons of that vicinity. In course of that, the appellant also threatened P.W.2 not to divulge the matter before anybody else. The victim made effort to shout, but Sanjib Malik threatened her that she would be killed if she shouted for help. Succumbing to the threat, she maintained silence and Sanjib Malik committed rape on her. Thereafter, the victim came weeping and on the way she met P.W.2 and her parents, before whom she divulged as to how she was sexually ravished by Sanjib Mallik. The matter was reported initially at Sagada Police outpost and thereafter the case was registered at Manmunda Police Station vide P.S. Case No.56 dated 02.07.2007. Accordingly, investigation taken up, the victim was sent for medical examination under requisition, wearing apparels of the victim and said Sanjib Mallik were seized. After completing investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant and his former co-accused under Sections 376(2)(g), 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Both the culprits denied the charges in entirety and advanced a plea of false implication. To substantiate the charge against the culprits, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the victim and P.W.2 is her friend (Gitanjali Sandha). P.Ws.6 and 8 are Medical Officers. P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 7 are the relatives and neighbours, before whom the victim had divulged the incident and in whose presence articles were seized. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. Defence choose not to adduce any evidence.

3. In course of the trial, Sanjib Mallick jumped bail and remained at large. So, his case was split-up on 09.03.2009 and hence the separate judgment of the present appellant.

4. On studied scanning the oral and documentary evidence, discarding the defence plea of denial and accepting the version of the victim and her friend (P.W.2), the learned trial court concluded that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Sections 376 read with 109 of IPC and Sections 341 and 506 of IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there being no iota of material in support of the charge under Sections 341 and 506 of IPC and Section 376 read with Section 109 of IPC, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are absolutely uncalled for.

6. The learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that there is no reason to discredit the testimony of the victim and her friend who have stood firm in their version and nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination.

7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised at the Bar. The learned counsel for the appellant having strenuously contended that there being no iota of evidence in support of charge under Sections 341 and 506 of IPC and Section 376 read with Section 109 of IPC, it is essential at the outset