Orissa High Court
Criminal Procedure Code vs State Of Odisha on 27 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: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.154 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).
Mana Challan .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. PVS Nanaji Achary, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-27.02.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 415(2) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal is preferred against the
Judgment dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Special Court, Jeypore, in
connection with T.R. Case No. 146 of 2017 arising out of Jeypore
Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016, whereby the appellant was convicted
for the offences under Section 376(2)(n)of Indian Penal Code and was
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The informant, being the mother of the victim, lodged a written
report before the Inspector-in-charge of Jeypore Mahila P.S., on
the basis of which a case registered under Section 376(2)(n),
506,34,109 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
(ii) The Appellant and Victim belong to the same village and were
well acquainted with each other prior to the alleged occurrence.
It is the prosecution case that in the month of Magha, 2016,
during the night hours, the Appellant came to the house of the
Victim, induced and seduced the her on the promise of
marriage, and on such assurance, established sexual intercourse
with her.
(iii) It is further alleged that the Appellant continued the physical
relationship for a considerable period of time, as a result of
which the victim became pregnant. The informant, upon
noticing the physical symptoms indicative of pregnancy, being
questioned the victim, whereupon she discloses the entire
incident and attributed the same to the Appellant.
(iv) Thereupon, the Victim was taken to the hospital for medical care
and on 03.01.2016 she delivered a female child. Subsequently, on
07.11.2016, a village meeting was convened in which the family
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
members of the Appellant were present. It is alleged that during
the said meeting, the family members of the Appellant refused
to accept the victim and the child, and further demanded a sum
of Rs 3000/- from the informant for not disclosing the incident to
thers.
(v) Thereafter, the I.O. conducted a detailed investigation into the
matter and submitted the chargesheet before the competent
Court. Upon perusal of the materials, the learned Trial Court
took cognizance of the offence and the trial commenced. After
due consideration of the evidence, the Appellant was found
guilty of committing the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC
and was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10
years and to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- and in default of payment of
the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period
of two months.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the
present criminal appeal.
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 judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Jeypore, in T.R. No. 146 of 2017,
whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36undergo rigorous imprisonment along with imposition of fine, is
wholly erroneous, contrary to law, and unsustainable on the
facts of the case. The Appellant submits that the said judgment
and order are liable to be set aside in the inherent of justice.
(ii) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has
failed to properly appreciate the materials and evidences
available on record and, as a consequence, erroneously recorded
the conviction. It is contended that the learned Court below did
not apply the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and
the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence,
resulting in a judgment that is legally unsustainable and liable to
be set aside.
(iii) The Appellant contends that the informant (P.W.1), who is the
mother of the victim, has admitted in her deposition that she
was unaware of the contents of the F.I.R., and that the report
was prepared by an Advocate. The Appellant submits that such
admission casts serious doubt on the veracity and authenticity
of the prosecution case.
(iv) The Appellant further contends that the learned Trial Court
acquitted him of the allegation under POCSO Act and convicted
the accused under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. It is submitted that,
as per the ossification test, the victim was a major at the time of
the alleged incident, which led to his acquittal under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, and consequently, the conviction under Section
376(2)(n) IPC is liable to be reconsidered.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
(v) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court
ought to have considered that no stage during the alleged
relationship was any force applied upon the victim. It is
contended that the relationship between the Appellant and the
victim was entirely consensual, and, as such, the provision of
Section 376 of IPC are not attracted.
(vi) The Appellant contends that the P.W.2, the Victim, has admitted
in her deposition that the Appellant maintained a physical
relationship with her for over a prolonged period on the
assurance of marriage. It is further submitted that the victim
herself admitted that she did not disclose her pregnancy to her
mother and only informed her after a period of six months. The
Appellant submits that such admission indicate concealment on
part of the victim and cast doubt on the prosecution narrative.
(vii) The Appellant submits that he and the Victim were involved in
a love relationship of wholly consensual nature. It is further
contended that the Appellant never disputed the paternity of the
child during the course of the trial, which remains undisputed,
thereby underscoring the consensual character of the
relationship.
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 learned Trial Court, upon
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36available on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence against the Appellant. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are well-reasoned,
based on cogent and credible evidence. Therefore, it is humbly
prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Trial Court be upheld and the appeal preferred by
the Appellant be dismissed.
(ii) It is vehemently contented on behalf of the Respondent that the
prosecution has successfully established the commission of the
offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC by adducing cogent and
reliable evidences, proving the case beyond all reasonable
doubts.
(iii) It is further submitted that the testimony of the victim, is in
itself, sufficient to sustain the conviction. The same stands duly
corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses as
well as the surrounding circumstances brought on record.
Hence, the learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at the
conclusion that the Appellant had committed the offence as
alleged.
(iv) The Respondent submits that the informant being a widow, had
gone to her native village and remained there for a period of
seven months. Upon her return, she observed that the victim’s
menstruation had ceased. Concerned about the situation, she
took the victim to a medical practitioner at Kotpad, who, upon
examination, opined that the victim was pregnant.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
(v) The Respondent further submits that, upon being questioned by
the informant, the victim disclosed the occurrence and stated
that the Appellant had been frequently visiting her residence
and had maintained a physical relationship with her under the
pretext of marrying her.
(vi) Thereafter, the informed organized a village meeting to seek a
resolution of the matter, in which the accused and his family
were present. It is submitted that the accused and his family
refused to acknowledge the parentage of the child born to the
victim, and notwithstanding such denial, the victim proceeded
to give birth to the child.
(vii) The Respondent submits that when the Appellant refused to
agree to a resolution at the village meeting, the Informant
lodged a report at the P.S. Subsequent investigation was
conducted, a chargesheet was filed, and cognizance was taken
by the learned Court. Upon conclusion of the trail, the Appellant
was found guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE AD HOC ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT ), JEYPORE:
5. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(2)(i),
396(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. The allegations in the chargesheet were that the accused had
repeatedly committed rape upon a minor victim, who was under 16
years of age, against her will and without her consent; had committed
criminal intimidation by threatening the victim with injury to her
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36person with intent to cause alarm to her; and had sexually assaulted
the minor victim repeatedly.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial and a careful appraisal of the evidence on
record, this Court notes that the accused was convicted under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC. The conviction is premised, inter alia, on the
ossification test, which established that the victim was a major at the
relevant time. Consequently, the provisions of POCSO Act,2012 were
not attracted, and the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) alone was
upheld.
7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the learned Trial Court held that sufficient materials were
available to substantiate the charges framed against the accused. On a
careful evaluation of the testimonies of the victim, the medical officers
and the Investigating Officers, the learned Trial Court arrived at the
conclusions that the accused has committed rape with impression to
her to marry her. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the charges
under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC as well as Section 8 of POCSO Act
stood proved.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Court
concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the
offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. Consequently, the accused was
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years and pay fine of Rs 5,000/- in default whereof he
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
9. Upon bestowing anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar, and upon an independent and
comprehensive reappraisal of the entire evidentiary record, this Court
finds that the learned Trial Court has meticulously analyzed the oral
and documentary evidence on record in its correct perspective and in
consonance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
10. The impugned judgment reflects a judicious, well-reasoned and
legally sustainable appreciation of evidence. The conclusions arrived
at by the learned Trial Court are founded upon cogent, reliable and
legally admissible evidence and are supported by proper reasoning.
This Court does not find any perversity, patent illegality or manifest
error of law in findings so recorded. Accordingly, the findings of
conviction do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.
11. The legal position governing determination of age is well crystallized
in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana1, the Supreme Court has held that
the date of birth entered in school records carries a presumption of
correctness and must be accepted unless convincingly rebutted. This
position was reiterated in Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein
the Court held that documentary evidence regarding age prevails over
medical opinion in case of variance. This Court, upon independent
scrutiny of the said materials, find no infirmity in the reliance so
1
(2013) 7 SCC 263
2
(2013) 14 SCC 637
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
placed by the learned Trial Court, and the conclusion regarding the
minority of the victim des not suffer any legal or factual error.
12. In the instant case, the question of the age of the victim at the time of
the alleged occurrence assumes critical significance. It is noted that the
victim did not fall within the definition of “child” as provided under
Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012. In view of the dispute regarding
her age, an ossification test was conducted, which indicated that the
victim’s age at the relevant time between 18 to 20 years. Consequently,
the victim cannot be classified as a “child” under the POCSO Act.
13. It is further observed that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides the procedural mechanism
to be followed in cases of dispute regarding age, wherein ossification
or other scientific tests may be employed to determine the age of the
person when other reliable materials for verification are not available.
The provisions of Section 94 are thus applicable to ascertain the age of
the victim in the present case for the purpose of applicability of the
14. Section 376(2)(n) of IPC prescribes enhanced punishment in cases
where rape is committed repeatedly upon the same woman. The provision
mandates rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which
may extend to the remainder of the offender’s natural life. The object of this
provision is to address aggravated instances of sexual assault, where
the offence is not a single confined to a single act but occurs
repeatedly on the same victim. The expression “repeatedly” employed
in the provision is of significance. It contemplates more than one act of
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
sexual assault, committed at different points in time on the same
victim. Judicial pronouncements have consistently interpreted this
expression to connote a series of acts that are separate and
independent in nature, and not merely a continuation of a single
transaction.
15. In genuine cases under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, the pattern is usually
manifest; an initial act of sexual assault is perpetrated, followed by
multiple subsequent acts effected through fear, coercion, deception, or
other means which render the victim vulnerable and unable to escape
the perpetrator. The provision thus seeks to punish repeated
violations of bodily integrity and sexual autonomy of a woman in an
aggravated form.
16. It is well settled that Courts must exercise extreme care and caution in
adjudicating cases arising under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. In such
cases, it is imperative to identify the essential indigents of the offence,
which include, inter alia, that the accused made a promise of marriage
to the victim solely with a view to obtain her consent of sexual
intercourse, without any intention of fulfilling such promise from the
very outset. Further, it must be established that the false promise of
marriage had a direct and proximate bearing on the victim’s consent
to engage in sexual relations. The Courts are enjoined to scrutinize the
evidence meticulously to ensure that the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused exploited the victim’s trust through
deliberate deception, thereby bringing the case squarely within the
ambit of Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
17. In the case of rape committed under the false pretext of marriage, the
essential contention is that the consent given by the woman was
induced by a misconception of fact, namely, the representation that
the accused would solemnize marriage with her. Such consent, being
founded on a deliberate misrepresentation, cannot be regarded as free
and voluntary within the meaning of Section 90 of IPC. Consequently,
when sexual intercourse is obtained by deliberately misleading the
victim into believing that a lawful marriage would ensue, the same
constitutes rape, as the consent so procured is vitiated by fraud and
deception. The Courts have consistently held that the exploitation of
such trust and reliance falls squarely within the ambit of criminal
liability under penal code.
18. The provision Section 90 of IPC deals with legal concept of consent
obtained under fear or misconception of fact, it provides that:
“A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any
section of this Codee, if the consent is given by a person
under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and
if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe,
that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or
misconception.; or….”.
Consequently, where a woman does not give consent freely and
voluntarily to the sexual acts contemplated under Section 376(2)(n)
IPC, but consents under a misconception of fact, the consent is vitiated
in law. The provision clarifies that consent obtained by deliberate
misrepresentation or fraud is not true consent in the eyes of law, and
sexual intercourse in such circumstances constitutes the offence of
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
rape. Section 90 IPC, therefore, embodies the principle that consent
must be real, informed, and free from any inducement founded on
fear, coercion, or deception.
19. In the context of Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the concept of “consent” must
necessarily must involve an active, informed and reasonable
deliberation by the woman with respect to the proposed act. The
question that arises is whether such consent was vitiated by a
“misconception of fact”, for instance, arising from a false promise of
marriage. In the present case, the primary contention advanced by the
prosecutrix is that the Appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with
her on the assurance and false promise of marrying her. In view of
this, her consent, being premised upon a material misconception of
fact induced by the Appellant, is vitiated in law. The law is well
settled that consent obtained under fraudulent misrepresentation
cannot be regarded as free and voluntary, and sexual intercourse
procured under such circumstances constitutes rape within the
meaning of Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
20. The Supreme Court has echoed on the similar contention in the Uday
v. State of Karnataka,3, wherein it has been held that:
“25. There is yet another difficulty which faces the
prosecution in this case. In a case of this nature two
conditions must be fulfilled for the application of Section
90 IPC. Firstly, it must be shown that the consent was
given under a misconception of fact. Secondly, it must be
proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or
had reason to believe that the consent was given in3
(2003) 4 SCC 46Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36consequence of such misconception. We have serious
doubts that the promise to marry induced the prosecutrix
to consent to having sexual intercourse with the
appellant.”
21. In the present case, the evidence on record demonstrates that the
Appellant, by giving false assurance of marriage, maintained a
physical relationship with the victim and committed sexual acts
repeatedly, ultimately resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a
child. The fraudulent promise of marriage, being deliberately
calculated to deceive the victim and obtain her consent, directly
vitiated her free consent. The acts of the Appellant, therefore, squarely
fall within the ambit of the offences punishable under Section
376(2)(n) IPC, as the sexual intercourse was procured by deliberate
deception and misrepresentation.
22. The question of delay in lodging the F.I.R. warrants careful scrutiny.
In the present case, there is no substantial delay attributable to the
informant. It is evident from the record that the informant, being the
mother of the victim, was not present at home at the time of the
alleged occurrence and had returned only after a period of seven
months, during which the victim was left alone at home. Upon her
return, the informant observing the victim’s pregnancy and the delay
in her menstrual cycle, made inquiries, whereupon the victim
disclosed the incident. the Court further notes that in cases of sexual
assault, it is not uncommon for victims to delay disclosure due to
social stigma, fear, or trauma. The initial nondisclosure by the victim,
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
under such circumstances, does not detract from the credibility of her
testimony or the veracity of the prosecution case.
23. The inherent bashfulness of females and tendency to conceal outrage
of sexual aggression are the factors, which the Court cannot overlook.
The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital. Unless and until it is
shown that there are compelling reasons, which necessitate
corroboration of testimony, the testimony of the victim can be relied
upon to base the conviction. Moreover, it has also been recorded that
Appellant had extended threats to kill her if she confined the matter to
anyone and upon which also his family wanted to give Rs 3000/- to
settle the matter.
24. The Supreme Court also relied upon to reiterate in Satpal Singh V.
State of Haryana,4, wherein it has been held that:
“13. In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about
her future. She remains in traumatic state of mind. The
family of the victim generally shows reluctance to go to
the police station because of society’s attitude towards
such a woman. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather
than comfort and sympathise with her. Family remains
concern about the its honour and reputation of the
prosecutrix. After only having a cool thought it is
possible for the family to lodge a complaint in sexual
offences.”
25. The victim in the present case was utterly helpless. One can well
envisages the immense pain, and trauma endured by her in the
aftermath of the Appellant’s reprehensible acts. She must have
4
(2003) 4 SCC 46
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
suffered the shock of her life on account of such an outrageous
violation of her bodily integrity and personal dignity. It is further will
recognized that in cases od sexual assault, no self-respecting woman
would voluntarily appear in Court to subject herself to the ordeal of
recounting humiliating and degrading details of the offence
committed upon her. The very act of testifying under such
circumstances underscores the veracity of her allegations and the
courage with which she has faced the traumatic experience.
26. The record further reveals that, being a single widow mother and
without any external support, upheld the welfare of her daughter and
ensured that the child was delivered safely, all the while relying upon
the assurance of the Appellant that he would solemnize marriage with
the victim. Thereafter, the informant brought the matter to the notice
of the villagers, and a village meeting was convened, in which the
family members of the Appellant were also present. During the said
meeting, both the Appellant and his family categorically denied any
obligation to accept the victim and the child.
27. Such a conduct on the part of the Appellant and his family inflicts
irreparable harm upon the emotional and psychological well-being of
the victim. It not only shatters her trust in humanity but also
perpetuates a social milieu that demeans and dehumanizes women,
undermining their dignity, autonomy, and sense od security. The
adverse impact of such acts extends beyond the individual, striking at
the very fabric of social morality and justice.
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
28. Upon an overall and cumulative evaluation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the
prosecution has established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the
Appellant committed sexual assault upon the victim by induing her
with false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix’s testimony is duly
corroborated by her prompt disclosure to her mother, the attendant
circumstances and other supporting evidence on record.
29. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the course of cross-
examination so as to discredit her version or to create any reasonable
doubt with regard to the veracity of the prosecution case. The
evidence of the victim inspires full judicial confidence and is found to
be wholly trustworthy. In view of the above, this Court holds that the
essential ingredients of the offences charged have been duly proved
against the Appellant, warranting affirmation of the finding of guilt.
VI. CONCLUSION:
30. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious and
meticulous of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered and firm opinion that the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Ad hoc
Additional District and Sessions Judge (First Track Special Court),
Jeypore, in T.R. No.146 of 2017, do not suffer from any illegality,
infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court.
31. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon a
proper appreciation of the evidence on record and are well supported
by the cogent and convincing reasons. Accordingly, the present
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:22:36
Criminal Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court are hereby affirmed. Consequently, this Court is not
inclined to accede to the relief prayed for by the Appellant.
32. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed.
33. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 27th February, 2026/
Page 18
