Orissa High Court
Criminal Procedure Code vs State Of Odisha on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1145 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).
Sanat Kumar Pradhan .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Gayatrii Patra, ASC
.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-21.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.02.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed
by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC),
Kandhamal, Phulbani in C.T. No. 05 of 2024, arising from Phiringia
P.S. Case No. 31 dated 30.01.2024, whereby the appellant Sanat Kumar
Pradhan was convicted for offences under Section 6(1) of the POCSO
Act and Section 376(2)(n) IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years with fine of ₹20,000/-, while the co-accused
parents were acquitted of charges under Sections 498-A/506 IPC.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.07.2016, when the
victim was allegedly about 17 years old, the appellant came to
her house during the absence of her parents and allegedly
committed forcible sexual intercourse, threatening her not to
disclose the incident.
(ii) The victim later disclosed the incident to her mother, who
informed the victim’s father. A village meeting was convened,
wherein the appellant allegedly admitted the incident and the
parties decided that the appellant would marry the victim after
she attained majority.
(iii) During the intervening years, the appellant allegedly continued
visiting the victim and maintaining physical relations with her.
After the victim attained majority, the parties solemnized
marriage on 12.05.2021 according to their customs.
(iv) After the marriage, the couple allegedly lived together for about
10-15 days, following which the appellant left the matrimonial
house and did not maintain contact with the victim.
(v) The victim alleged that thereafter she was subjected to
harassment by her parents-in-law and that on 22.11.2021, they
attempted to kill her by pressing a pillow on her face while she
was sleeping. The victim thereafter returned to her parental
house and eventually lodged an FIR on 30.01.2024, nearly eight
years after the alleged initial incident.
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
(vi) During investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, medical examinations were conducted, the
school admission register was seized to determine age, and the
accused was arrested on 08.03.2024.
(vii) The prosecution examined 16 witnesses including the victim,
her mother, medical officers, investigating officer, and village
witnesses. The defence examined one witness denying the
allegations.
(viii) Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the
appellant for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and
repeated rape, but acquitted the co-accused parents for offences
under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC due to lack of specific
evidence.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The appellant contends that the conviction is unsustainable as
the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and
relied upon weak and unreliable testimony without adequate
corroboration.
(ii) It is argued that the prosecution case rests primarily on the
testimony of the victim and her mother, both being interested
witnesses, while the majority of independent witnesses did not
support the prosecution case.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
(iii) The appellant emphasizes that there was an inordinate delay of
nearly eight years in lodging the FIR, which remains
unexplained and raises serious doubt about the genuineness of
the allegations.
(iv) It is further submitted that the alleged conduct of the victim in
maintaining a relationship with the appellant and eventually
marrying him in 2021 indicates that the relationship was
consensual rather than coercive.
(v) The defence argues that medical evidence does not corroborate
the allegations of rape, as the medical examination conducted in
2024 did not reveal any signs of injury or recent sexual
intercourse.
(vi) The appellant challenges the determination of the victim’s age,
contending that reliance on the school admission register is
unreliable as the source of the date of birth was not proved and
the father who allegedly supplied the information was not
examined.
(vii) It is also argued that the investigating officer admitted in cross-
examination that birth certificate, anganwadi records, or the first
school certificate were not collected, which casts doubt on the
finding that the victim was a minor at the time of occurrence.
(viii) The appellant further submits that material witnesses such as
the victim’s father and the scribe of the FIR were not examined,
creating gaps in the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to
investigate crucial aspects such as the alleged village meeting or
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
documentary proof of such resolution, thereby weakening the
prosecution narrative.
(ix) The appellant also argues that the trial proceedings were
conducted in violation of the Juvenile Justice Act, as the
investigation records allegedly indicated that the accused
himself might have been a juvenile at the time of the alleged
occurrence.
(x) On these grounds, the appellant submits that the conviction is
based on flimsy reasoning and incomplete investigation, and
therefore deserves to be set aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the
submission that the present CRLA deserves to be rejected in limine.
(i) The respondent submits that the judgment of conviction passed
by the Trial Court is well-reasoned and based on proper
appreciation of evidence, and therefore the appeal deserves
dismissal.
(ii) It is contended that the testimony of the victim is clear,
consistent, and reliable, and that in cases of sexual offences the
statement of the victim alone can form the basis of conviction.
(iii) The prosecution submits that the victim has clearly deposed that
the appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse when she
was alone at home, and threatened her not to disclose the
incident.
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
(iv) The respondent further contends that the victim’s mother
corroborated the disclosure made immediately after the
incident, which strengthens the credibility of the prosecution
case.
(v) It is argued that a village meeting was convened after the
incident, during which the appellant allegedly admitted his guilt
and agreed to marry the victim once she attained majority.
(vi) The prosecution asserts that the subsequent marriage between
the parties in 2021 and the conduct of the appellant’s family
reflect an acknowledgment of the incident and provide
circumstantial corroboration.
(vii) The respondent further submits that the delay in lodging the FIR
stands sufficiently explained, as the families initially attempted
to resolve the matter through community mediation and waited
until the victim attained majority for marriage.
(viii) It is contended that the school admission register constitutes
reliable documentary evidence regarding the age of the victim
and establishes that she was below eighteen years at the time of
the incident.
(ix) The respondent argues that the testimony of several village
witnesses regarding the meeting and subsequent marriage
arrangement supports the version of the victim.
(x) It is therefore submitted that the prosecution has successfully
proved the offences under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act and
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
Section 376(2)(n) IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and the
conviction requires no interference.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE AD HOC ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTSC), KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI:
5. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the facts, observed as under:
(i) The Court first addressed the issue of age of the victim, relying
primarily on the school admission register produced by the
headmistress, which recorded the victim’s date of birth as
05.02.2000, thereby holding that she was a minor on the date of
occurrence.
(ii) The Court rejected the defense argument based on the medical
officer’s reference to the victim’s age in the Aadhaar card,
holding that the school register carried greater evidentiary value
in determining age.
(iii) In assessing the offence of rape, the Trial Court placed
substantial reliance on the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and
her mother (PW-2), considering their statements to be consistent
and credible.
(iv) The Court also relied on the evidence of village witnesses who
referred to a community meeting and decision to solemnize
marriage, treating it as corroborative of the victim’s allegation.
(v) The Trial Court observed that the absence of medical evidence of
injury was not fatal to the prosecution case, as the medical
examination was conducted several years after the alleged
incident.
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
(vi) With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court accepted
the prosecution explanation that the families initially attempted
a settlement through marriage and therefore refrained from
approaching the police.
(vii) The Court further held that the continued relationship between
the parties after the incident and the eventual marriage did not
negate the offence, as the victim was allegedly below eighteen
years at the time of the initial sexual act, making consent legally
irrelevant under the POCSO Act.
(viii) On the allegation of cruelty and criminal intimidation by the
parents-in-law, the Court found that the evidence was general
and lacked specific instances, and therefore acquitted them of
charges under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC.
(ix) Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution had
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant repeatedly
committed sexual intercourse with the victim when she was a
minor, thereby attracting Section 6(1) POCSO Act read with
Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
(x) Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and
imposed rigorous imprisonment for 20 years along with fine,
while directing payment of ₹5,00,000 compensation to the victim
through DLSA.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
7. The present appeal arises from a set of facts which must be examined
with care. The circumstances reflected in the record also indicate
certain social realities in which the events are said to have unfolded.
The Court is therefore required to scrutinize the evidence on record
and consider whether the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
call for interference in appeal.
8. In an appeal by a convicted accused, the High Court must conduct a
fresh appraisal of the entire record; it is duty bound, in the same way
as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as
intrinsically and arrive at an independent conclusion on guilt or
innocence. if on re-appraisal two views are possible, the appellate
court must adopt the view favourable to the accused and extend the
benefit of reasonable doubt. At the same time, it should not overturn a
trial court’s conviction simply by focusing on minor inconsistencies or
technicalities.
9. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. N.K.1.
Once the prosecution makes a convincing case for recording a finding
of guilt, courts must not lean toward acquittal by giving weight to
irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or treating unfounded doubts
as real. The Court held as follows:
“It is true that the golden thread which runs throughout the
cob-web of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India
is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not
suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape
unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. An
unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the1
(2000) 7 SCC 195Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case
for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the
Court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving
weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by
resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving
benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in
criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not
an excuse for finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited
acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on prawl
for easy preys, more so when the victims of crime are
helpless females. It is the spurt in the number of unmerited
acquittals recorded by criminal courts which gives rise to
the demand for death sentence to the rapists.”
10. In sum, the Court may re-examine evidence in full, but must do so
conscientiously and not disturb a conviction unless the trial court’s
findings are demonstrably perverse or unsupportable on the record.
11. In the present case, the Court must therefore examine whether the
evidence on record, when tested in light of the above principles,
justifies the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court. The
primary issues that arise relate to the determination of the victim’s
age, the evidentiary value of her testimony and that of the supporting
witnesses, the explanation offered for the delay in lodging the FIR,
and the effect of the surrounding circumstances, including the alleged
village settlement and the subsequent marriage between the parties. It
is only upon a careful re-appraisal of these aspects, and the overall
consistency of the prosecution case, that this Court can determine
whether the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court is supported
by the evidence on record or whether it calls for interference in
appeal.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
12. It is well settled that in sexual-offence trials the unshaken testimony of
a reliable victim (prosecutrix) can by itself sustain conviction. In
multiple judicial precedents, it has been confirmed that a cogent and
consistent statement of a prosecutrix need not be discarded merely for
lack of medical corroboration.
13. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the recent case of State of
Himachal v. Manga Singh2 held that the testimony of the prosecutrix
alone may be sufficient to establish guilt if it inspires confidence. The
Court held as follows:
“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can
be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix
and no-corroboration be required unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for
corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the
testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but
a guidance of prudence under the given facts and
circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies
should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the
prosecutrix.”
14. Likewise, in the present case, the testimony of the victim assumes
central importance. A careful reading of her deposition shows that she
has consistently stated that the appellant visited her house in the
absence of her parents and committed the alleged act, and thereafter
continued to maintain relations with her over a period of time. Her
account of the occurrence, the disclosure made to her mother, and the
circumstances surrounding the village meeting find material support
in the evidence of PW-2 as well as in the testimony of certain village
2
(2019) 16 SCC 759.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
witnesses who have spoken about the intervention of the community
and the arrangement that the parties would marry after the victim
attained majority. The subsequent marriage between the parties,
though not determinative of guilt by itself, forms part of the
surrounding circumstances which the prosecution relies upon to show
that the incident had in fact taken place and was acknowledged
within the village.
15. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada v. State of
Gujarat3 held that to require corroboration for every rape victim
would be adding insult to injury and a victim’s credible account must
be accepted in the absence of affirmative contradictions. The Court
held as follows:
“In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a
victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a
rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of
the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual
molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with
lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is
to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male
dominated society.”
16. If the present case is examined in the light of the above principles, the
evidence of the victim cannot be approached with a presumption of
distrust merely because of the circumstances highlighted by the
defence. The deposition of the victim, when read in its entirety,
presents a consistent account of the alleged occurrence and of the
events that followed thereafter. Her statement regarding the
disclosure made within the family and the subsequent village meeting
3
1983 AIR 753
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
also finds some measure of support from the evidence of other
witnesses who have spoken about the intervention of the community
and the proposed arrangement of marriage between the parties.
17. The fact that the matter appears to have initially been addressed
through such informal means may explain certain features of the
prosecution case, including the delayed reporting of the incident. At
the same time, the implications of such circumstances must be
considered with due caution, and this aspect shall be examined more
closely at a later stage of the analysis. For the present, it is sufficient to
note that the testimony of the prosecutrix, when read along with the
surrounding evidence on record, cannot be discarded at the threshold
and must be evaluated on its intrinsic credibility and overall
consistency.
18. The appellant points to a delay in filing the FIR, but the law treats
such delays with caution. There are multiple judicial precedents that
have repeatedly held that in sexual assault cases a delay per se is not
fatal, given the reasons are plausible. Courts recognize that victims or
their families may fear social stigma or community pressure, and that
a delayed complaint can still be credible.
19. For example, in the case of State of Rajasthan (Supra), the Court
noted that though there was some delay, it had been satisfactorily
explained. More importantly, the Court stressed that once an
otherwise convincing case is made out, must not let doubt become an
excuse for finding in favour of acquittal. The Court held as follows:
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55“The trial court found the incident, as alleged, proved. In
the opinion of the learned trial Judge the testimony of the
prosecutrix inspired confidence. It was corroborated by the
medical evidence as also by the testimony of her father. The
prosecutrix was held to be 15 years of age on the date of the
incident. Though there was delay in lodging the FIR but it
was satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the accused-
respondent was found guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC and sentenced as above.
…
A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be
a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for finding in favour
of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in
the society being on prawl for easy preys, more so when the
victims of crime are helpless females. It is the spurt in the
number of unmerited acquittals recorded by criminal courts
which gives rise to the demand for death sentence to the
rapists. The courts have to display a greater sense of
responsibility and to be more sensitive while dealing with
charges of sexual assault on women.”
20. In the present case, the delay in lodging the FIR, though significant,
cannot by itself be treated as fatal to the prosecution. The record
indicates that the matter was initially dealt with within the family and
through a village meeting, where the appellant is said to have agreed
to marry the victim after she attained majority. These circumstances
provide some context to the delayed reporting. The delay must
therefore be assessed alongside the overall evidence on record, rather
than viewed as a ground to discard the prosecution case outright.
21. The appellant has also pointed to certain investigative omissions,
notably, the non-examination of some witnesses and alleged non-
compliance with procedures. The law addresses such lapses
carefully. In the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
Chamansing4, the Supreme Court held that the omitting a material
witness depends on context. Where an “essential part” of the
prosecution case could have been elucidated by a witness who was
available but not called, that lapse may warrant an adverse inference
against the State. The Court held as follows:
“It is true that if a material witness, which would unfold the
genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution
case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where
there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which
could have been supplied or made good by examining a
witness which though available is not examined, the
prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a
deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would
oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the
prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been
examined it would not have supported the prosecution case.
On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is
available and examination of other witnesses would only be
a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced,
non-examination of such other witnesses may not be
material. In such a case the Court ought to scrutinise the
worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask
itself whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so,
whether such witness was available to be examined and yet
was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive
then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may
arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the
testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the
Court can safely act upon it uninfluenced by the factum of
non-examination of other witnesses.”
22. As for missing documents or procedural irregularities, the authorities
similarly hold that a defective investigation does not automatically
4
AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 232
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
invalidate a prosecution. An investigating officer’s errors or omissions
(even serious ones) render the case incomplete but do not void the
trial. The logic is that justice requires a decision on the proved facts,
notwithstanding police defects. Thus, even if the police failed to
secure certain records or neglected to comply strictly with a CrPC
provision, the merits of the case are determined by the remaining
legal evidence.
23. Only if it is shown that prejudice to the accused resulted from the
lapse will it tilt the balance. In the present case, no material prejudice
is shown from any investigative gap; the available evidence (medical
report, scene witnesses, etc.) sufficed to establish guilt. The lapses
noted by the defence were either immaterial or were adequately
explained at trial, and therefore do not compel acquittal.
24. In the present case, the omissions pointed out by the appellant do not
appear to go to the root of the prosecution case. The non-examination
of certain witnesses or the absence of some records may, at best,
reflect imperfections in the investigation; however, they do not by
themselves render the evidence already on record unreliable. The
testimony of the victim, supported by the disclosure made to her
mother and the surrounding circumstances spoken to by other
witnesses, constitutes the core of the prosecution case. The defence
has not been able to demonstrate how the alleged lapses have
materially undermined this evidence or caused any real prejudice to
the accused. The Court must therefore assess the case on the strength
of the evidence that has been brought on record rather than allow the
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
entire prosecution to fail on account of investigative shortcomings
which do not substantially affect the proof of the occurrence.
25. The next issue pertains to the determination of the age of the parties at
the relevant time. This assumes significance because the prosecution
case is not confined to a single date but alleges a course of conduct
commencing in July, 2016 and continuing thereafter; the legal
consequences would, therefore, depend upon whether the victim was
below eighteen years during the period when the acts attracting penal
liability are alleged. The learned Trial Court has relied upon the
school admission register proved through the competent witness to
hold that the victim’s date of birth is 05.02.2000, and thus that she was
a minor on 18.07.2016. The defence criticism that the source of the date
of birth was not separately proved, or that other documents such as
birth certificate/anganwadi records were not collected, is a factor for
consideration; however, it does not by itself displace the evidentiary
worth of a contemporaneous school record duly proved, particularly
when the accused has not produced any better or more reliable
material to the contrary.
26. Equally, the plea that the appellant may have been a juvenile at the
time of the alleged occurrence is an issue that must be tested on the
basis of legally admissible material and the statutory mechanism; a
mere suggestion, absent proof, cannot unsettle a finding otherwise
supported by record. In this backdrop, the determination of the
victim’s minority at the inception of the occurrence remains a pivotal
fact against which the remaining evidence has to be assessed.
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
27. The plea that the appellant himself “might have been a juvenile” at
the time of the first incident cannot be accepted on conjecture. The law
provides a defined statutory mechanism for raising and determining
juvenility; but a mere suggestion, absent legally admissible
foundational material, cannot unsettle a finding otherwise supported
by the record. In any event, such a plea, where not duly proved,
cannot be permitted to operate as a blanket answer to a conviction
resting on proved facts.
28. This brings the Court to the broader doctrinal question implicated by
the appellant’s defence: whether the alleged village “settlement” and
the subsequent marriage solemnised after the victim had attained
majority can dilute or retrospectively legitimise conduct that is alleged
to have occurred when the victim was a minor. The answer, in law,
must be in the negative.
29. Criminal liability attaches to the act at the time of its commission.
Where the foundational fact of minority is established, the statutory
protection is not negotiable; it cannot be postponed by social
arrangement, nor extinguished by later events.
30. The POCSO Act is a child-protection statute rooted in constitutional
morality, not community convenience. The Act itself records that it is
enacted in furtherance of Article 15(3) and India’s accession to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it insists that the best
interests and well-being of the child be regarded as paramount.
Further, the statute declares that its provisions operate in addition to
other laws and, in case of inconsistency, shall have overriding effect to
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
the extent of such inconsistency. This legislative architecture leaves no
room for importing informal “settlements” as a defense, or for
allowing private compromise to erode statutory safeguards.
31. It is necessary to clarify, lest the facts be misunderstood: the marriage
in the present case is not alleged to be a child marriage; it was
solemnised after the victim attained majority. Yet, that does not
advance the appellant’s case. A later marriage may be a biographical
fact, but it is not a legal solvent. If the offence is proved to have
commenced when the victim was below eighteen, the subsequent
marriage cannot retrospectively cleanse the initial illegality or bar the
operation of criminal law. To hold otherwise would be to create, by
judicial tolerance, an escape route that the statute has consciously not
provided
32. The judicial precedents have repeatedly highlighted and cautioned
courts against the very subterfuge by which sexual offences are
sought to be softened through compromise or by holding out
marriage as a “solution”. In State of M.P. v. Madanlal5, the Supreme
Court reaffirmed that in rape or attempt to rape, the idea of
compromise is fundamentally alien. It is an offence against society,
and courts must remain “absolutely away” from adopting a soft
approach merely because a compromise is projected or marriage is
suggested as solace. The Court held as follows:
“We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or
attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no5
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 998Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes
against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These
are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the
reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the
richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow
it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the
“purest treasure”, is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of
her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever
think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or
settlement as it would be against her honour which matters
the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the
perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock
with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit
manner; and we say with emphasis that the Courts are to
remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft
approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to
be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it
differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error.
We are compelled to say so as such an attitude reflects lack
of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan vital, of a
woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of
mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans
legal permissibility.”
33. The doctrinal thread is clear: the dignity of the victim and the public
interest in deterrence cannot be traded for negotiated quietus.
34. One disturbing aspect of the present case requires a clear word from
this Court. The materials indicate that the allegation did not first reach
the authorities charged with enforcing the law. Instead, it was taken to
a gathering in the village where elders attempted to “settle” the
matter by securing a promise of marriage. That course of action is
deeply troubling. The moment an offence against a minor is alleged,
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
the matter belongs before the law, not before a circle of village
arbiters.
35. What happened here reflects a familiar but dangerous pattern. A
serious allegation is quietly drawn away from the legal system and
placed before a village forum, where discussions revolve around
family honour, reputation, and adjustment. In the process, the child’s
grievance is treated as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a
wrong to be answered in law. This Court is not unaware of the social
realities in which many such incidents arise, particularly in rural
communities where informal structures of authority often influence
how disputes are handled. Yet recognition of those realities cannot
extend to accepting them as substitutes for the law. To allow a
criminal offence against a child to be absorbed into such informal
arrangements would amount to a deeply disturbing inversion of the
legal order.
36. This Court cannot treat such conduct lightly. A sexual offence against
a minor is a grave crime. When a group of local notables sits in
judgment and decides that the issue can be resolved through
assurances of marriage, they behave as though the criminal law stops
at the boundary of the village. The law does not recognise any such
boundary.
37. It must be remembered that no panchayat is a court of law. A
Sarpanch does not exercise the authority of a magistrate, nor do
village elders acquire jurisdiction over criminal offences merely by
convening a meeting. The adjudication of crime belongs to the
Page 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
institutions of the legal system alone. When village bodies assume to
themselves the task of deciding or “settling” such allegations, they
step beyond their lawful role and act in clear disregard of the
authority of law.
38. The law is also explicit about the duty of those who come to know of
such offences. The POCSO Act requires that information regarding an
offence against a child be reported to the police or the Special Juvenile
Police Unit. The statute does not leave room for quiet compromises or
informal handling. Those who choose to gather villagers and hush the
matter up instead of reporting it place themselves in clear disregard of
that duty.
39. The authority that accompanies positions such as Sarpanch or
panchayat member is not a licence to interfere with the criminal
process. It exists to serve the community within the bounds of law.
When that influence is used to suppress allegations of sexual
exploitation of a child, it becomes something far removed from
leadership.
40. Courts cannot remain silent in the face of such conduct. If those who
claim to speak for a village use that standing to stifle a child’s
complaint and keep the police away, they are not preserving harmony
but are protecting the wrongdoer and leaving the victim unheard.
They are simply an attempt to keep a serious crime out of the reach of
the law.
41. Those who occupy positions of leadership in a community must
remember that their authority carries responsibility. A Sarpanch or
Page 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
village elder has no mandate to decide whether a crime against a child
should reach the police. Their duty is to ensure that the law takes its
course, not to obstruct it by convening meetings or brokering
compromises within the village
VI. CONCLUSION:
42. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, and those already discussed on
the merits of the evidence, this Court finds no perversity or illegality
warranting interference with the judgment of conviction. The appeal
is accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by
the learned Trial Court are affirmed.
43. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate
and the Superintendent of Police concerned. They shall ensure that
appropriate sensitisation measures are undertaken at the district and
village levels so that community functionaries, including Sarpanches,
ward members and other local representatives, clearly understand
that allegations of sexual offences against minors are not matters
capable of private settlement and must be reported to the lawful
authorities without delay.
44. The District Administration and the Police authorities shall also take
steps to ensure that persons occupying positions of authority in
village institutions are made aware of their statutory obligations
under the POCSO Act, particularly the duty to report offences
involving children. It shall be made clear that any attempt by village
bodies or local leaders to suppress such allegations through informal
meetings, compromise, or promises of marriage is wholly
Page 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:21:55
impermissible. If persons holding positions of influence in the
community are found to have deliberately prevented or discouraged
reporting of such offences, appropriate action in accordance with law
shall be considered.
45. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th February, 2026/
Page 24