The prosecution failed to establish rape beyond reasonable doubt; however, conviction for criminal trespass upheld due to sufficient evidence of unlawful entry and intent to outrage modesty.

Judgment :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.1995 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.35 of 1994 arising out of G.R. Case No.390 of 1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 448 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 1995. When the matter was called for hearing consistently, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, on 24.02.2026, this Court requested Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Panda.

3. Heard Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix, wife of P.W.2, was residing in her matrimonial house under Boudh Police Station along with her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. It is alleged that on 03.10.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant forcibly pushed open the door of the house, entered the room of the prosecutrix, threatened her with a knife, gagged her mouth and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. After the occurrence, the appellant allegedly left the place. On the return of her husband and other family members, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to them and on the following morning, a report was lodged at Boudh Police Station. Upon registration of the case, investigation was undertaken and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 448 and 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The plea of the appellant before the trial Court was one of complete denial. It was further contended that the case was falsely foisted against him due to previous ill-feeling and the alleged social discord in the village. The defence did not adduce any evidence.

6. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is the prosecutrix, P.W.2 is her husband, P.Ws.3 and 4 were seizure witnesses, P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the accused, P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer and P.W.7 was the doctor, who examined the prosecutrix. The prosecution also relied upon several documents including the medical reports and the chemical examination report.

7. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the appellant had committed criminal trespass into the house of the prosecutrix and had committed rape upon her. The learned trial Court further held that the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the appellant not being a member of such caste, the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were attracted. On such findings, the appellant was convicted and