Orissa High Court
Criminal Procedure Code vs State Of Odisha on 14 July, 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: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1446 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).
Goutam Pradhan .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
Mr. Anirudha Das, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this CRLA, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated
18.11.2025 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District &
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Kandhamal, Phulbani, in
C.T. Case No. 43 of 2022, arising out of Sarangada P.S. Case No. 59 of
2022, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417 and 450 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant lodged a
written report before Sarangada Police Station on 13.07.2022
alleging that, while she was studying in Class IX in the year
2011, the accused induced her to maintain a physical
relationship with him. At that time, she was residing in a rented
house at Village Gahingia and pursuing her studies at K.
Nuagaon High School, whereafter she shifted to a rented house
at Chanapadar. It was alleged that the accused visited her room
and attempted to establish physical relation with her forcibly
despite her repeated refusal. Thereafter, he allegedly visited her
room regularly at night and established physical relations with
her. It was further alleged that he took her to various places and
maintained physical relations with her. Subsequently, while the
victim was residing at Kumbhar Sahi, Chanapadar, the accused
also visited her residence and established physical relations with
her at various places, including the premises of Vivekananda
School and the ground behind the school.
(ii) It was further alleged that, after completing her schooling at K.
Nuagaon High School, the victim pursued her +2 studies at J.J.
Mahavidyalaya, Raikia. During this period, the accused
allegedly visited Raikia, took her to secluded places, and
established physical relations with her. It was also alleged that
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
the accused promised to marry her after the completion of her
studies and upon her securing employment.
(iii) In the year 2018, the victim joined as a Home Guard at
Sarangada Police Station. Thereafter, the accused allegedly told
her that, as she was not having regular menstrual periods, she
might not be able to conceive and advised her to undergo
medical treatment. Accordingly, the victim, with the assistance
of Constable Sasmita Mallick and her husband, Simanchala
Ghatal, visited Bhanjanagar for an ultrasound examination,
which revealed no abnormality. It was further alleged that
almost all the police personnel of Sarangada Police Station were
aware of the accused’s visits to the victim’s quarters. The
accused also allegedly transferred money to the victim’s bank
account and continued to exploit her sexually. It was further
alleged that, during the months of February and March, 2021,
the accused regularly visited the victim’s quarters and
established physical relations with her, as a result of which she
became pregnant.
(iv) It was further alleged that, upon learning about the pregnancy,
the accused insisted that the victim terminate it. However, the
victim refused and asked the accused to marry her. It was
alleged that, in the month of July, 2021, she initially consumed
medicines for termination of the pregnancy, but the same
proved ineffective. Thereafter, the accused allegedly took her to
Subham Hospital, Khurda, with the assistance of an ASHA
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
worker, namely Sukanti, where her pregnancy was terminated.
It was further alleged that, thereafter, the accused informed the
victim that their horoscopes did not match and insisted that she
marry someone else. In the meantime, the accused allegedly
printed invitation cards for his proposed marriage with one
Kamalini Kanhar.
(v) Pursuant to the report, the I.I.C., Sarangada Police Station,
registered Sarangada P.S. Case No. 59 dated 13.07.2022. Upon
completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge-sheet on 10.09.2022 against the appellant
for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n),
313, 417 and 450 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. Consequently, cognizance was taken and the appellant was
committed to the Court of Session to face trial.
(vi) The defence of the appellant was one of complete denial and
false implication. Accordingly, the appellant pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
(vii) During the course of trial, the learned Trial Court framed the
following points for determination:
a. Whether the accused committed rape on the victim who
was below 16 years of age?
b. Whether the accused repeatedly committed rape on the
victim?
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23c. Whether the accused voluntarily caused the victim with
child to miscarry not caused in good faith for the purpose
of saving the life of the victim?
d. Whether the accused kept physical relationship with the
victim with assurance of marriage and he arranged his
marriage elsewhere and avoided to marry the victim and
thereby cheated the victim?
e. Whether the accused committed house trespass by
entering into the dwelling house of the informant in order
to commit offence of rape punishable with imprisonment
for life?
f. Whether the accused committed aggravated penetrative
sexual assault on the victim?
(viii) During trial, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses and
proved documentary exhibits marked as Exts. 1 to 20. The
defence did not adduce any evidence.
(ix) Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial
Court held that the prosecution had established the charges
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 313
IPC, the learned Trial Court convicted him for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417 and 450 of the
IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and directed payment
of compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to the victim.
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
(x) By the Order on Sentence dated 18.11.2025, the learned Trial
Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine for the offence under
Section 376(2)(n) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years
with fine for the offence under Section 450 IPC, and rigorous
imprisonment for six months with fine for the offence under
Section 417 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under
Section 376(2)(i) IPC or Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the
appellant was extended the benefit of set-off under Section 428
Cr.P.C.
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 submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court
below is contrary to the evidence available on record and suffers
from serious errors of law and appreciation of evidence. The
learned Court below has failed to consider the material
contradictions, omissions, inconsistencies and improbabilities
appearing in the prosecution case, thereby resulting in an
erroneous conviction of the appellant.
(ii) The appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant
under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, could not have been recorded in respect of
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23alleged acts commenced in the year 2011. Admittedly, the
POCSO Act came into force only on 14.11.2012. Therefore,
applying the provisions of the POCSO Act to alleged acts
committed prior to its enactment amounts to retrospective
application of a penal statute and is directly violative of Article
20(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no
person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a
law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an
offence.
(iii) The appellant submitted that it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that penal statutes cannot operate retrospectively.
Reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court
in Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh1, where it was
reiterated that the constitutional protection against retrospective
imposition of a harsher penal consequence under Article 20(1) is
absolute. Similarly, in Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West
Bengal2, it was held that no person can be subjected to a penalty
greater than or different from that which could have been
imposed under the law existing at the time of commission of the
offence. In view of the aforesaid settled position, the conviction
of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, insofar as it
relates to alleged acts prior to the enactment of the said statute,
is legally unsustainable. The learned Court below has
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1516.
2
AIR 1953 SC 404.
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
committed a jurisdictional error in applying a penal provision
which was not in force at the alleged time of occurrence.
(iv) The appellant further submitted that even otherwise, the
prosecution has failed to establish the foundational requirement
for invocation of the POCSO Act, namely, that the prosecutrix
was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence.
The prosecution has not produced any admissible documentary
evidence such as a birth certificate issued by the competent
authority, school admission register, certificate from the first
school attended, or any statutory record to establish the age of
the prosecutrix.
(v) Reliance was further placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of
Haryana3, wherein the Supreme Court laid down the procedure
for determination of age and held that the documents prescribed
under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 ought to be followed in determining age.
The Court prescribed the following hierarchy: (i) matriculation
or equivalent certificate, (ii) date of birth certificate from the
school first attended, (iii) birth certificate issued by the
municipal authority, and only in the absence of such documents,
medical opinion through ossification test. In the present case,
the learned Trial Court has relied upon oral assertions of the
prosecutrix and her family members without any legally
3
(2013) 7 SCC 263.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
admissible proof of age. Such oral assertions, in the absence of
statutory documents, cannot form the sole basis for determining
minority and attracting the penal consequences under the
POCSO Act. Therefore, the conviction under the POCSO Act is
unsustainable.
(vi) The appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court has further
erred in mechanically invoking the presumptions under Sections
29 and 30 of the POCSO Act without first recording a finding
regarding establishment of the foundational facts necessary for
application of such presumptions. The prosecution was required
to first prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was
a child within the meaning of the Act and that the essential
ingredients of the alleged offence were established.
(vii) It was submitted that the statutory presumptions under the
POCSO Act cannot replace the requirement of proof of
foundational facts. Reliance was placed on the observations of
the Supreme Court in Kaliaperumal v. State4, where it was held
that statutory presumptions cannot be invoked to cure inherent
inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
(viii) It was submitted that the evidence on record demonstrates a
prolonged relationship between the appellant and the
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix continued her association with the
appellant over a considerable period and was admittedly an
4
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1234
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
adult during a substantial part of the alleged relationship. The
FIR was lodged only after the alleged decision of the appellant
to marry another person, which indicates that the dispute
essentially arose from the alleged failure of promise of marriage.
(ix) The appellant contended that the learned Court below has failed
to appreciate that every breach of promise to marry does not
constitute rape. The prosecution was required to establish that
the promise of marriage was false from its very inception and
was made solely with the intention of obtaining consent for
sexual relations. Reliance was placed on the observations of the
Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka5, wherein it was
held that where a prosecutrix voluntarily enters into a
relationship with a person whom she loves on the basis of a
promise of marriage, subsequent failure to marry does not
automatically amount to rape unless the promise was false from
the very beginning. Further reliance was placed on Kaini Rajan
v. State of Kerala6, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana7, and
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra8, wherein
the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between a genuine
promise which subsequently fails and a false promise made only
for obtaining consent. In the present case, the prosecution has
failed to establish that the appellant had no intention of
5
(2003) 4 SCC 46.
6
(2013) 9 SCC 113.
7
(2013) 7 SCC 675.
8
(2019) 9 SCC 608.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
marrying the prosecutrix from the inception or that the promise
of marriage was merely a device to obtain consent. Therefore,
the conviction based on alleged breach of promise to marry is
contrary to the settled position of law.
(x) It is further submitted that the prosecution case suffers from
complete absence of medical and scientific corroboration. The
medical examination conducted by PW-6 did not reveal any
signs or symptoms of sexual intercourse. The Chemical
Examination Report (Ext. P-24) recorded that no semen or
bloodstains were detected on the exhibits and vaginal secretion
could not be detected.
(xi) It is submitted that the allegation regarding termination of
pregnancy has also not been established by the prosecution
through any reliable evidence. The alleged termination of
pregnancy at Omm Subham Hospital, Khurda, has not been
proved through any medical record, certificate or evidence of
the concerned medical personnel. PW-16, the proprietor of the
said hospital, and PW-18, the Staff Nurse, have categorically
stated that they had no knowledge regarding any such
termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix.
(xii) The appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court itself
acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 313 of the
IPC, thereby holding that the prosecution failed to prove the
allegation relating to causing miscarriage. Once the evidence
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
was found insufficient to establish the said allegation, the same
set of evidence could not have been relied upon to support the
allegation of repeated sexual assault over a prolonged period.
(xiii) The appellant asserted that the medical examination of the
appellant (Ext. P-25) merely established his capability of sexual
intercourse and does not, in any manner, connect him with the
alleged acts. The prosecution has failed to produce any forensic
evidence establishing any linkage between the appellant and the
alleged sexual assault.
(xiv) It is asserted that it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that where scientific and medical evidence fails to
support the prosecution version, the benefit of doubt must
necessarily go to the accused. The negative Chemical
Examination Report, absence of detection of semen or vaginal
secretion, and lack of medical corroboration create a serious
doubt regarding the prosecution case, which has not been
properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court.
(xv) It is further submitted that the prosecution case suffers from
material contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the year of
occurrence, the exact period during which the alleged acts were
committed, the places where such incidents allegedly occurred
and the circumstances surrounding the alleged relationship
between the parties. These inconsistencies strike at the root of
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
the prosecution case and render the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses unreliable.
(xvi) It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish
continuity of the alleged minority status of the prosecutrix
throughout the period of alleged repeated acts between 2011
and 2022. The prosecution has attempted to club all alleged
occurrences together in order to sustain the aggravated charge
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, without establishing the
specific age of the prosecutrix at the time of each alleged
occurrence. Such an approach is contrary to the statutory
requirement that the victim must be a child at the time of
commission of the alleged offence.
(xvii) It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13.07.2022
after an unexplained and inordinate delay of more than eleven
years from the first alleged incident of 2011. During this period,
the prosecutrix remained in continuous contact with the
appellant, was independently employed as a Home Guard at
Sarangada Police Station since 2018, and no complaint was
lodged before any authority. The delay in lodging the FIR,
coupled with the admitted continuation of relationship between
the parties and the fact that the complaint was lodged only after
the appellant allegedly decided to marry another person, creates
serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the allegations and
raises the possibility of subsequent embellishment,
improvement and afterthought. In this regard, reliance is placed
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
upon Raja v. State of Karnataka9, wherein the Supreme Court
has held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR assumes
significance and may indicate the possibility of embellishment
and improvement in the prosecution version.
(xviii) It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the conduct of the parties during the alleged period
of relationship. The evidence on record reflects prolonged
association, continued communication and voluntary interaction
between the appellant and the prosecutrix, which is inconsistent
with the theory of coercion or force and creates reasonable
doubt regarding the prosecution case.
(xix) It is further submitted that the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses suffers from material contradictions, omissions and
improvements. The learned Trial Court erred in treating the
testimony of the prosecutrix as conclusive without subjecting
the same to proper judicial scrutiny in light of the
inconsistencies appearing on record.
(xx) It is a settled principle that although the testimony of the
prosecutrix does not require corroboration as a rule, where such
testimony suffers from serious infirmities, contradictions and
improvements, the Court is required to scrutinise the same with
greater caution and seek assurance from other reliable evidence.
9
(2016) 10 SCC 506.
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
(xxi) PW-8, the friend of the prosecutrix, whose testimony has been
relied upon by the learned Trial court, made material
improvements over her earlier statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer. Such improved testimony could not have
been treated as reliable corroboration, particularly when the
accused was not afforded an opportunity to effectively confront
such improvements during examination of the Investigating
Officer.
(xxii) It is submitted that the independent witnesses available to the
prosecution did not support its case. PW-14 (Sasmita Mallick)
and PW-15 (Tribhanga Majhi), who were independent
witnesses, have not supported the prosecution version. The
failure of independent witnesses to support the prosecution case
is a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered
while appreciating the evidence on record.
(xxiii)It is submitted that the learned Trial Court selectively relied
upon portions of the evidence favourable to the prosecution
while ignoring material portions which created doubt regarding
the prosecution story. Evidence cannot be appreciated in
fragments by accepting only those portions which support the
prosecution and discarding the remaining portions without
justification.
(xxiv)It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where two
views are reasonably possible on the evidence available on
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
record, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the
other towards his innocence, the view favourable to the accused
must prevail. The prosecution is required to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt and suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of proof.
(xxv) It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish a
complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards
the guilt of the appellant. The evidence available on record does
not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the
appellant and, therefore, the conviction based on such
incomplete and doubtful evidence cannot be sustained.
(xxvi) The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances, namely,
retrospective application of the POCSO Act, failure to prove age,
absence of medical and forensic corroboration, unexplained
delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the testimony of
witnesses, failure of independent witnesses to support the
prosecution case, and improper appreciation of evidence, clearly
demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
4. The learned counsel for the State earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) P.W.11 (Head Master) deposed that the School Admission
Register of Govt. High School, K. Nuagaon, seized during
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23investigation and produced as Ext.P- 11, records the victim’s
date of birth as 08.05.1996, corroborated by her Board Certificate
(Ext.P-7). He further stated that the victim was admitted in
Class-VIII on 21.04.2009 in presence of her father. In absence of
any rebuttal, his evidence establishes that the victim was below
16 years of age in 2011, thereby confirming her minority at the
time of occurrence.
(ii) P.W.1 (Victim) deposed that the accused maintained physical
relationship with her continuously from 2011 to 2022 and has
narrated the prosecution story in detail which clearly shows that
the accused committed rape on her while she was below 16
years of age. In the year 2011, while she was studying at
Government High School, K. Nuagaon, and residing in a rented
house at Chanapadar, the accused, then working as an SPO at
Nuagaon P.S., forcibly established physical relationship with her
on 11.02.2012 in the presence of her friend, Kalpana Pradhan
(P.W.5). Thereafter, even after she shifted to Kumbhar Sahi,
Chanapadar, the accused continued to visit her during the night
hours and repeatedly maintained physical relationship with her
against her will, including at the premises and backside ground
of Bibekananda School. The accused continued to maintain
physical relationship with her for about 6-7 months until he left
for training. After passing matriculation, when she joined Jeevan
Jyoti Mahavidyalaya, Raikia in 2013, the accused again met her
in 2014-2015 and continued such relationship on the way to her
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
home under a promise of marriage, which he later delayed on
various pretexts. After she joined as a Home Guard in 2018, the
accused continued to avoid marriage citing medical reasons,
though they maintained physical relationship between 2015 to
2018. Further, while she was residing in Government quarters at
Sarangada Police Station, the accused continued to visit her and
maintain physical relationship till March 2021, resulting in her
pregnancy. Upon her request for marriage, the accused refused
and compelled her to terminate the pregnancy, and on
01.08.2021 took her to Omm Subham Hospital, Khurda where
the pregnancy was terminated. Her evidence further discloses
that, the accused repeatedly committed rape on her since the
year 2011 till 31.05.2022 when for the last time he kept physical
relationship with the victim. Thereafter, he ultimately refused to
marry her on the pretext of horoscope mismatch, after which he
proceeded to marry another woman. She then lodged the FIR;
her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she
was medically examined.
(iii) P.W.8 (Roommate of the Victim) deposed that she was a
classmate of the victim in Classes IX and X at Government High
School, K. Nuagaon, and that both of them resided together in
rented houses at Gahingia and later at Chanapadar (Kumbhar
Sahi), where the accused used to visit during the night hours.
She stated that, on one occasion, after the accused visited their
rented house at night, she saw him sleeping with the victim on
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
the same bed. On the following morning, the victim, while
crying, disclosed to her that the accused had forcibly established
physical relationship with her. She further deposed that, on
31.07.2021, the victim informed her over the phone that she had
conceived due to repeated sexual intercourse by the accused and
was five months pregnant. Thereafter, on 01.08.2021, the
accused took her to Khurda, where her pregnancy was
terminated.
(iv) PW-2 (Father of the Victim) deposed that the victim was about
16 years old while studying in K. Nuagaon High School. In 2021,
the victim disclosed that the accused had been in a physical
relationship with her since 2011, had caused her to abort a
pregnancy, and had falsely promised marriage.
(v) PW-3 (Mother of the victim) deposed that two years back the
victim told her that the accused was having illicit relationship
with her since last 10 years while she was studying at K.
Nuagaon High School in Class-IX.
(vi) So far as Section 6 of the POCSO Act is concerned, it provides
for punishment in cases of aggravated penetrative sexual
assault. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly
establishes that the accused committed repeated penetrative
sexual assault upon the victim since 2011, when she was a
minor. The minority of the victim stands proved from the School
Admission Register and is further corroborated by the
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
testimonies of her parents and P.W.8. Therefore, the acts
committed by the accused squarely fall within the ambit of
aggravated penetrative sexual assault, thereby attracting Section
6 of the POCSO Act.
(vii) In the present case, the victim was examined by the Medical
Officer after a considerable lapse of time. Consequently, the
medical report does not disclose any sign or symptom of recent
sexual intercourse. However, it is a settled position of law that
where the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and
reliable, the absence of medical evidence is of no consequence,
as held in Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar10. Further, the mere
non-availability of corroborative material, such as findings in
the C.E. Report, non-support by independent witnesses, or non-
seizure of the alleged photographs, cannot demolish the
prosecution case when the evidence of the prosecutrix is
otherwise cogent and credible.
(viii) It is pertinent to mention here that the defence has taken a plea
of consensual relationship. However, the victim has consistently
reiterated her allegations in the FIR, her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C., and her deposition before the Court that the
accused initially established physical relationship with her in the
year 2011, when she was a minor, and thereafter continued such
acts. It is a settled principle of law that the consent of a minor is
10
(1983) 4 SCC 10.
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
no consent, and any alleged willingness or relationship dynamic
cannot absolve the accused of criminal liability, as held in Satish
Kumar Jayantilal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat11. The Supreme
Court held that a minor girl can easily be lured into giving
consent without understanding the consequences, and,
therefore, such consent cannot be treated as valid consent in
law. Consequently, even if the minor appears to have consented,
the sexual act constitutes the offence of rape, and the accused
cannot take the plea that the act was consensual, nor can such
consent be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
(ix) In view of the foregoing facts and the settled position of law, it is
most respectfully submitted that the present CRLA filed by the
appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated
18.11.2025 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District &
Sessions Judge (FTSC), Kandhamal, Phulbani, is devoid of merit
and is liable to be dismissed.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE ADHOC ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT), KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI:
5. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the facts, observed as under:
(i) The learned Trial Court framed the following points for
determination:
a. Whether the accused committed rape on the victim who
was below 16 years of age?
11
(2015) 7 SCC 359.
Page 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
b. Whether the accused repeatedly committed rape on the
victim?
c. Whether the accused voluntarily caused the victim with
child to miscarry not caused in good faith for the purpose
of saving the life of the victim?
d. Whether the accused kept physical relationship with the
victim with assurance of marriage and he arranged his
marriage elsewhere and avoided to marry the victim and
thereby cheated the victim?
e. Whether the accused committed house trespass by
entering into the dwelling house of the informant in order
to commit offence of rape punishable with imprisonment
for life?
f. Whether the accused committed aggravated penetrative
sexual assault on the victim?
(ii) In support of its case, the prosecution examined twenty
witnesses and proved documentary exhibits marked as Exts. 1
to 20. PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 and PW-3 are her parents, PW-
4, PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-17 are
independent witnesses, PW-6 is the Medical Officer who
examined the victim, PW-7, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13
and PW-19 are seizure witnesses, PW-16 is the proprietor of
Omm Subham Hospital, Khurda, PW-18 is a Staff Nurse of the
Page 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
said hospital, and PW-20 is the Investigating Officer. The
defence did not adduce any evidence.
(iii) Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court
held that the testimony of the victim, corroborated by her
parents and PW-8, was reliable and sufficient to establish that
the appellant had repeatedly committed rape upon the victim
since she was below sixteen years of age. It was further held
that the absence of medical or forensic corroboration did not
discard the prosecution case and that the minor contradictions
in the evidence were not material.
(iv) While acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 313
IPC for want of evidence regarding termination of pregnancy,
the learned Trial Court convicted him for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417 and 450 of
the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and directed
payment of compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to the victim.
(v) Thereafter, the learned Trial Court heard the appellant on the
question of sentence. By the Order on Sentence dated
18.11.2025, the learned Trial Court observed that the
occurrence had taken place in the year 2011 and referred to
the punishment prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act
prior to and after its amendment by the POCSO (Amendment)
Act, 2019. Having regard to the year of occurrence, the
learned Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo
Page 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of
₹10,000, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year, for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC,
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of ₹5,000, in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for
the offence under Section 450 of the IPC, and rigorous
imprisonment for six months and a fine of ₹1,000, in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the
offence under Section 417 of the IPC. No separate sentence
was awarded under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC or Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, as the learned Trial Court considered that
separate punishment was not warranted in view of the
sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently
and the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of set-off
under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
7. The present appeal arises from a judgment of conviction passed by the
learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Special Court), Kandhamal, Phulbani. Therefore, this Court is
required to independently reappreciate the evidence on record and
examine whether the findings recorded by the learned trial court
suffer from any illegality, perversity or misappreciation of the
Page 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23evidence and whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The first issue which arises for consideration is regarding the age of
the victim and the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act. In
this regard, the prosecution had placed reliance upon the evidence of
P.W.11, the Head Master of Government High School, K. Nuagaon,
who proved the School Admission Register marked as Ext.P-11.
According to P.W.11, the date of birth of the victim was recorded as
08.05.1996 at the time of her admission in Class-VIII and the entry was
made in the presence of her father. The prosecution has also relied
upon the Board Certificate marked as Ext.P-7, which reflects the same
date of birth.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
prosecution failed to establish the age of the victim through
admissible evidence. However, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.11,
it is evident that the School Admission Register is a contemporaneous
document which has been duly proved through its competent
custodian. The Board Certificate further corroborates the said entry.
On the contrary, no material has been brought on record to discredit
either of these documents. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity
in the finding of the learned Trial Court that the victim was born on
08.05.1996 and remained below eighteen years of age till 08.05.2014.
Consequently, the prosecution has successfully established her
minority during the period for which the provisions of the POCSO
Act are attracted.
Page 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
10. The appellant has further contended that since the relationship
allegedly commenced in the year 2011, prior to the coming into force
of the POCSO Act on 14.11.2012, the provisions of the said Act could
not have been applied without offending Article 20(1) of the
Constitution of India. There can be no dispute with the settled
principle that penal statutes cannot operate retrospectively. However,
the prosecution case is not confined to an isolated act alleged to have
occurred in the year 2011. The evidence of P.W.1 consistently discloses
that the appellant continued to establish physical relations with her on
several occasions even after the POCSO Act came into force. The
documentary evidence establishes that the victim attained the age of
eighteen years only on 08.05.2014. The evidence on record indicates
that the allegations are not confined to acts allegedly committed prior
to 14.11.2012 but extend to the period between 14.11.2012 and
08.05.2014, when the victim continued to be a child within the
meaning of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.
11. The appellant has also contended that the learned Trial Court
mechanically invoked the statutory presumptions under Sections 29
and 30 of the POCSO Act without establishing the foundational facts.
This contention also does not merit acceptance. Before drawing the
statutory presumptions, the prosecution was required to establish the
foundational facts regarding the age of the victim and the commission
of the alleged offence. As discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has
established the minority of the victim through documentary evidence,
namely the School Admission Register and the Board Certificate, duly
Page 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
proved by P.W.11. Further, the testimony of P.W.1, which this Court
finds to be reliable and trustworthy, coupled with the corroborative
evidence on record, establishes the foundational facts necessary for
invocation of the statutory presumptions. Once such foundational
facts stood established, the statutory presumptions under Sections 29
and 30 of the POCSO Act became available. No illegality can,
therefore, be found in the approach adopted by the learned Trial
Court.
12. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the
prosecution has established the charge of repeated penetrative sexual
assault against the appellant. The victim (P.W.1) has given a detailed
account of the allegations against the appellant. She has stated that
while she was studying in Class-IX and was below sixteen years of
age, the appellant established physical relations with her and
thereafter continued such relationship over several years on the
assurance of marriage. She has further stated that the relationship
continued even after she attained majority and persisted till the year
2022.
13. It is well settled that the testimony of the prosecutrix in a case
involving sexual assault does not require corroboration as a matter of
law if it inspires confidence and is otherwise reliable. Nevertheless,
such testimony must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny to
ascertain whether it is free from material inconsistencies and worthy
of acceptance. In this regard, in Ganesan v. State represented by its
Page 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
Inspector of Police12, the Supreme Court observed that the statement
of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable,
requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on her
sole testimony. Similarly, in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of
Haryana13, it was observed that to hold an accused guilty for
commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the
prosecutrix is sufficient provided that the same inspires confidence
and appears to be trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality.
14. In Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)14, the Supreme
Court elucidated the concept of a “sterling witness” and observed that
it should be of a very high quality and calibre. The relevant
observations are replicated hereinunder:
“In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should
be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a position to accept it
for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality
of such a witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness
of the statement made by such a witness. What would be
more relevant would be the consistency of the statement
right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the court. It should be natural and
consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version of
such a witness. The witness should be in a position to12
(2020) 10 SCC 573.
13
(2011) 7 SCC 130.
14
(2012) 8 SCC 21.
Page 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
withstand the cross-examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance
should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the
occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and
every one of other supporting material such as the
recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion.
The said version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not be any
missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if
the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well
as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held
that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness”
whose version can be accepted by the court without any
corroboration and based on which the guilty can be
punished. To be more precise, the version of the said
witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain
intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should match the said
version in material particulars in order to enable the court
trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the
other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty
of the charge alleged.”
15. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the testimony
of P.W.1 inspires confidence and is reliable on the material particulars
of the prosecution case. Despite extensive cross-examination, nothing
substantial has been elicited to discredit her testimony regarding the
repeated acts of sexual assault committed by the appellant. The
evidence of P.W.8, who resided with the victim during her school
days, corroborates the frequent presence of the appellant at their
Page 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
rented accommodation and the association between the parties during
the relevant period. Although P.W.8 is not an eyewitness to the
commission of the offence, her testimony lends assurance to the
prosecution version regarding the continued association between the
parties during the relevant period. Likewise, the evidence of P.Ws.2
and 3, the parents of the victim, though hearsay regarding the
occurrence itself, corroborates the fact that the victim had disclosed
the relationship and the assurance of marriage given by the appellant.
16. The appellant has further contended that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions,
particularly in the testimony of P.W.8, and that certain independent
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. This Court has
carefully examined the evidence in that regard. The discrepancies
pointed out by the appellant relate primarily to surrounding
circumstances of the occurrence and do not strike at the core of the
prosecution case. The consistent version of P.W.1 regarding the
repeated acts of sexual assault commencing during her minority has
remained substantially unshaken. Likewise, the evidence of P.W.8
lends assurance to the prosecution case regarding the association
between the parties during the relevant period. Merely because
certain witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution or because
some omissions or improvements have been elicited in cross-
examination, the otherwise reliable testimony of the prosecutrix does
not become unworthy of acceptance. It is well settled that minor
inconsistencies which do not go to the root of the prosecution case are
Page 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
liable to be ignored and cannot be made the basis for discarding
otherwise trustworthy evidence.
17. One of the principal contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant
is that the prolonged relationship between the parties, coupled with
the delay in lodging the FIR, indicates that the relationship was
consensual and that the criminal proceedings were initiated only after
the appellant decided to marry another woman. It is true that the
conduct of the parties is a relevant circumstance while appreciating
the evidence. However, the evidence on record establishes that the
initial acts of sexual intercourse were committed when the victim was
below eighteen years of age. Insofar as those acts are concerned, the
consent of a child is legally immaterial under the POCSO Act. The
subsequent continuation of the relationship after attainment of
majority cannot efface the criminality, once established, of the acts
committed during her minority.
18. The appellant has further contended that the relationship between the
parties was consensual and that, at best, the dispute arose on account
of the appellant’s subsequent refusal to marry the victim. It is indeed
trite that every breach of a promise to marry does not ipso facto
constitute rape unless it is shown that the promise was false from its
inception and was made only to obtain consent. However, the said
principle has limited application to the facts of the present case. The
prosecution case is that the appellant initially subjected the victim to
repeated sexual intercourse while she was still below eighteen years of
age and thereafter continued the relationship after assuring her that
Page 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
he would marry her. Since this Court has found that the prosecution
has established the commission of penetrative sexual assault during
the period of the victim’s minority, the question of consent becomes
irrelevant in view of the statutory protection under the POCSO Act.
The subsequent continuation of the relationship after the victim
attained majority does not erase or legalise the criminal acts allegedly
committed during her minority. Accordingly, the authorities relied
upon by the appellant governing consensual relationships between
adults do not materially advance his case.
19. The appellant has further contended that the FIR was lodged after an
unexplained delay of about eleven years and that such delay renders
the prosecution case doubtful. It is well settled that, having regard to
the sensitive nature of sexual offences, delay in lodging the FIR
cannot, by itself, be treated as fatal to the prosecution case and must
be appreciated in the facts and circumstances of each case. The
evidence of P.W.1 indicates that she continued the relationship under
the assurance that the appellant would eventually marry her.
According to her, the complaint came to be lodged only after the
appellant ultimately refused to marry her and proceeded to marry
another woman. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay cannot be said to
be so improbable or unreasonable as to discredit the prosecution case
solely on that ground.
20. The appellant has also relied upon the absence of medical and forensic
evidence. P.W.6, the Medical Officer, did not notice any recent signs of
Page 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
sexual intercourse and the Chemical Examination Report did not
reveal any incriminating material. However, the medical examination
was admittedly conducted long after the alleged incidents. It is well
settled that where the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be
trustworthy and reliable, absence of medical or forensic corroboration
by itself is not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case. In cases
involving repeated sexual assault over a prolonged period, such
absence of corroborative evidence is not decisive and cannot outweigh
the otherwise reliable testimony of the prosecutrix.
21. It is further noted that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed
that the evidence of the victim cannot be discarded merely because
some independent witnesses did not fully support the prosecution
case. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found trustworthy, is by
itself sufficient to sustain a conviction and does not require
independent corroboration as a matter of law.
22. It is further noticed that the allegation regarding termination of
pregnancy has not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence of
P.Ws.16 and 18, namely the proprietor and the Staff Nurse of Omm
Subham Hospital, does not support the prosecution allegation, nor
has any medical record relating to such termination been produced.
The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly acquitted the appellant
of the charge under Section 313 IPC. However, the failure of the
prosecution to establish the allegation relating to termination of
pregnancy does not affect the remaining charges, which stand
independently supported by the evidence on record. Each charge is
Page 33
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
required to be examined on the evidence adduced in support thereof.
The evidence considered insufficient to sustain a conviction under
Section 313 IPC does not ipso facto demolish the otherwise reliable
evidence relating to the charge of repeated sexual assault.
23. Upon an independent reappreciation of the entire evidence on record,
this Court finds itself in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by
the learned Trial Court. The findings recorded are based upon a
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and do not
suffer from perversity, illegality or any manifest misapplication of law
warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of
conviction and the consequential order of sentence do not suffer from
any infirmity warranting interference.
25. Accordingly, the Judgment of Conviction and the Order on Sentence
dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District &
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Kandhamal, Phulbani in
C.T. (Special) Case No.43 of 2022 are hereby affirmed and the present
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th July, 2026/
Page 34
