Orissa High Court
Anil Nath vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 April, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.945 of 2019
In the matter of an application under Section 374(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure
..................
Anil Nath Appellant
....
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
For Appellant : M/s. S. Dash, Adv.
For Respondents : M/s. P.K. Panda,
Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 13.03.2026 and Date of Judgment:07.04.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence
// 2 //
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S)
No.09 of 2018 vide judgment dt.10.09.2019. Vide the
impugned judgment, Appellant was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Section 376(1) and
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for 12 years and
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- , in default, R.I for 1(one) year
for the offence under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C and S.I
for 1(one) month for the offence under Section 323 of the
I.P.C. Both the offences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. While assailing the impugned order of conviction
and sentence, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that the prosecution was set into
motion with lodging of the F.I.R, giving rise to Industrial
P.S (Nisha) Case No.111 of 2017. The aforesaid case was
registered against the appellant for the offence under
Sections 376(2 )(m) and Section 307 of the I.P.C.
Page 2 of 14
// 3 //
3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
contended that the Appellant faced the trial after being
charged for the aforesaid offence under Sections
376(2)(m)/323 of the I.P.C. Prosecution story as narrated
in the F.I.R reads as follows:
Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the victim is an
old woman of 80 years and the accused is a young boy of
25 years and both belong to the same village. The accused
is also a married person having his wife. On 11.9.2017 at
about 8.30 A.M. in the morning the victim had been to
village pond to take bath. While taking bath sitting on a
stone, the accused reached there, forcibly committed rape
on her and assaulted her by means of stone, as a result of
which she sustained injury on her person. Some villagers
who were returning from the jungle seeing the condition of
the victim gave Intimation to the informant and his family
members after which they rushed to the spot, rescued the
victim and sent her to the hospital for medical
examination. The victim narrated the whole incident before
the informant and her other family members. After such
incident, the informant went to police station on the same
day and lodged the written report at about 11.00 PM. On
the basis of the written report of the informant Kutartha
Nath, Police registered Industrial P.S (Nisha) case No.
111/2017, u/s.376(2)(m) and 307, IPC against the
accused.
3.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
contended that prosecution in order to prove the charges
examined 18 nos. of witnesses. While P.W.1 is the
Informant, P.W.2 is a co-villager and P.Ws.3 & 4 are the
daughter-in-law of the victim. P.W.5 is the victim herself,
P.Ws.6 & 7 are the Constables, who took the accused for
Page 3 of 14
// 4 //medical examination. Similarly, P.W.8 is the Constable,
who took the victim for her medical examination. P.Ws.9
& 10 are the independent witnesses/witnesses to the
seizure. Similarly, P.Ws.11 & 13 are the
Constables/witnesses to the seizure of biological samples
of the victim. P.Ws.12 & 18 are the Doctors, who
examined the victim and P.W.14 is the Doctor, who
examined the accused. P.W.15 is the post-occurrence
witness and P.Ws.16 & 17 are the I.Os of the case.
3.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant
vehemently contended that even though the victim by the
time the alleged offence took place was 80 years old, but
the Doctor who examined the victim, namely; P.W.18
came to a finding that the injury found on the victim was
not due to the assault made by the Appellant while
committing the offence of rape. P.W.12, who also
examined the victim, though came to a finding that there
was recent sign and symptom of sexual intercourse, but
in view of the medical report so exhibited, such finding of
Page 4 of 14
// 5 //the P.W.s12 & 18 should not have been relied on by the
learned trial Judge.
3.4. It is also contended that by the time the alleged
offence took place, since the victim was only 26 years old,
it cannot be held that he committed rape on a lady aged
about 80 years. Not only that, even though the alleged
offence took place in broad day light, but no independent
witnesses were examined by the Prosecution in support
of the alleged crime, which is fatal.
3.5. It is further contended that since the alleged
offence occurred on 11.09.2017 at about 8.30 A.M in a
village pond, it is quite improbable that no other person
was present at the particular time. It is also contended
that because of the allegation made against the appellant,
he was arrested and remanded to custody. In the
meantime, the Appellant has already undergone more
than 8 years out of the substantive sentence of 12 years
for the offence under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C. Not only
that, taking into account the nature of allegation and the
Page 5 of 14
// 6 //order of conviction and sentence, this Court allowed the
Appellant to go on interim bail on different occasion for
different periods.
3.6. Making all these submissions, learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant contended that the order of
conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant
requires interference of this Court.
4. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on
the other hand while supporting the impugned order of
conviction and sentence contended that since the
Prosecution has proved the allegation of rape beyond all
reasonable doubt and such allegation is well supported
by the statement of the victim-P.W.5 and statement of the
Doctors-P.Ws.12 & 18, no illegality or irregularity can be
found with the impugned judgment. P.W.5 in her
statement has held as follows:
1. The informant is my grandson. I know the accused
standing inside the dock who is my immediate neighbor. I
am the victim of this case.
2. The occurrence took place about one year two months
back at Chunaghati Bandha (pond). On the date of
occurrence at about 9.00 A.M in the morning I had been to
Chunaghati Bandha to take bath. While taking bath sittingPage 6 of 14
// 7 //on a stone, the accused – came there, dragged me away to
a distance and committed rape on me. After rape, the
accused assaulted to my head, face and other parts of my
body by means of a stone for which I sustained bleeding
injury and lost my sense. I was shifted to hospital where I
medically examined.
Cross examination by defence.
3. Nobody was present near Bandha when I had been to
that place for taking my bath. The accused holding my
neck dragged me away from the Bandha. There was stone
and mud on the ridge of the Bandha. I had sustained
injury on my leg and buttock. Nobody has witnessed the
commission of rape on me. The accused is my nephew.
4. It is not a fact that there was quarrel between the
accused and my grandson prior to the occurrence. I do not
remember the colour of the saree. After the occurrence I
was taken to hospital. I cannot say in which vehicle I was
shifted to the hospital as I had lost my sense. 1 regained
my sense in the hospital. I remained in the hospital for
about 4 to 5 days for treatment. I cannot say what
examination doctor conducted.
5. It is not a fact that the accused did not commit rape on
me; that the accused had lodged F.I.R in the P.S. against
my grandson and that I have falsely implicated the
accused in connivance with my grandson.
4.1. It is also contended that the Doctors who examined
the victim namely P.Ws.12 & 18 also came to a definite
finding that there was recent sign and symptom of
sexual intercourse of the victim. Not only that, the
Doctor who examined the victim, also found injuries on
the body of the victim. Statement of P.Ws.12 & 18 reads
as follows:
Statement of P.W.12
Page 7 of 14
// 8 //
1. On 12.8.17, I was in my present place of posting. On
that day, on police requisition I have examined one
Surekha Nath, aged about 80 years, W/o. Late Iswar
Nath, vill-Bhubanpur, p.s.-Industrial Nisha, Dist-Angul and
found the followings.
(a) There were bodily injuries present on her person
suggesting forcible sexual intercourse. The injuries are as
follows:-
(1) Vagina was very tender, congested with blood oozed
out from both side lateral part near the opening of vaginal
canal.
Multiple abrasive wounds skin deep with blood dried
present over upper part of mid forehead.
(ii) Her clothings etc. has no physical clue of alleged sexual
offence.
(iii) There is sign and symptom of recent sexual intercourse
and the probable time in within 48 hours of my
examination of the genitalia and physical examination.
(iv) The vaginal swab was collected, preserved in normal
saline, labeled, sealed and handed over to accompanied
police.
(v) Blood group is AB+ve
(vi) The age of the victim is between 70 to 80 years as per
ossification test and of physical examination.
(vii) The pubic hair was collected, preserved, labeled,
sealed and handed over to accompanied police which was
white in colour and mated.
(viii) There was recent sign and symptom of sexual
intercourse from the aforesaid examination.
This is my report marked as Ext.4 and Ext.4/1 is my
signature on the same.
Cross-Examination by the Defence.
2. I have not done microscopic examination of whitish fluid
found in the perineum. It is not a fact that the injuries on
the vaginal canal of the victim is possible if the vagina
comes in contact with a hard material. It is not a fact that I
have not properly examined the victim and my report is
perfunctory.
Page 8 of 14
// 9 //
Statement of P.W.18
1. On 11.9.2017 I was working as Sr. Medical Officer at
DHH, Angul. On that day, at about 11.20 A.M. on police
requisition I examined one Surekha Nath, aged about 80
years, W/o.Late Iswar Nath of village-Bhubanpur, being
identified by Pravati Singh Samant, constable No.62 and
found the following injuries.-
(i) One abrasion of size ½” x ½” over left side of forehead.
(ii)One bruise of size 3″ x 3″ over right side breast.
Both the injuries were simple in nature being caused by
hard and blunt object
2. No visible injury found outside the vaginal canal. Only
dried blood found outside the canal.
3. The age of injury was within six hours of my
examination. Both the injuries are possible in case of
assault by means of stone. The injury no (ii) also may be
caused due to assault by hand.
This is my report already marked as Ext.9 and Ext.9/3 is
my signature on the same.
Cross-Examination by the Defence.
4. The injuries can be caused duc to fall on the hard and
rough surface. There is possibility of bleeding in case of
suffering by the victim from any venereal disease. I had
not made any query from the victim regarding the cause of
Injury The victim also did not voluntarily disclose before
me about commission of rape. It is not a fact that I have
not properly examined the victim and submitted my report
at the behest of the police and deposing falsehood.
4.2. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel taking this Court
to the evidence of P.W.5 as well as P.Ws.12 & 18 and the
medical report so exhibited contended that since
allegation of rape has been well proved by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, no illegality or
Page 9 of 14
// 10 //
irregularity can be found with the impugned order of
conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant.
4.3. It is further contended that on the face of the
evidence of P.W.5 r/w P.W.12 & 18, even though no
independent witness has been examined by the
prosecution, it is not fatal to the case of the Prosecution
and no adverse inference can be drawn against the
prosecution . It is also contended that since the victim,
who happens to be a lady of 80 years has supported the
allegation and nothing has been elicited by the defence,
showing therein that no such incident has taken place,
relying on the testimony of P.W.5 only, the order of
conviction and sentence has been rightly passed.
4.4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel further contended
that P.W.14, who examined the accused also found that
the accused has sustained certain injuries and the
suggestion given by the defence that the accused being a
married person and he has committed the same on his
wife, cannot be believed. P.W.14 has found the following
Page 10 of 14
// 11 //
injury on the body of the accused. Statement of P.W.14
reads as follows:
On 12.9.17 I was working as medicine specialist at DHH,
Angul. On that day, on police requisition, I had examined
the accused named Anil Nath, aged about 25 years,
S/o.Kumaramani Nath, vill-Bhubanpur, Industrial Nisha,
Dist-Angul and my findings are as follows:-
(i) The accused Anil Nath is capable of doing sexual
intercourse.
(ii) Clothings had no clue of sexual offence.
(iii) No bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual
intercourse was found, that means injury to the genital
and nearby area and injury by broken bangles on
anywhere on the body were absent, but he had laceration
on nose, size 4″ x 4″ on nose.
(iv) Laceration over right shin of tibia may be due to assault
or due to hard blunt. No abrasion or incised injury found.
2. Features of sexual intercourse was found that means
within 24 hours at the time of examination and patient had
not taken bath since committing sexual intercourse.
(a)Features were mated pubic hair found.
(b) Dried stains of semen on prepuce and glans pennies.
(c) seminal stain on monspubis area.
(d) skin of genital partially swollen and prepuce was
swollen.
(e) No smegma was found.
3. Semen sample collected and preserved and handed over
to police. Blood grouping and VDRL test done. Blood group
was O +ve, VDRL non-reactive. Pubic hair preserved.
Opinion:- Features of recent sexual intercourse within 24
hours was found at the time of examination.
This is my report marked as Ext.5 and Ext.5/1 is my
signature on the same
Cross-Examination by the Defence.
Page 11 of 14
// 12 //
4. My report reveals that the accused was married. In case
of sexual intercourse with his own wife by the accused, the
features found by me during examination are possible
except the injuries. The injuries are possible in case of
assault by anybody.
4.5. Making all these submissions, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel contended that since the
prosecution has proved the charges against the
Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned order of
conviction and sentence.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submission made, this Court
finds that the prosecution case was set into motion
basing on the FIR lodged by the informant-P.W.1 on
11.09.2017 in Industrial P.S. Case No.111 of 2017.
The alleged offence took place on 11.09.2017 and the
F.I.R was lodged on the very same day. It is found
from the record that P.Ws.12 & 18, who examined
the victim, clearly proved the allegation of rape on the
victim by the accused.
Page 12 of 14
// 13 //
5.1. Not only that, P.W.14, who examined the
accused has also found injury on his body. It is also
found that P.W.5 in her deposition has clearly proved
the allegation of rape committed on her by the accused.
This Court taking into account the statement of the
victim-P.W.5 vis-Ã -vis the statement of P.Ws.12 & 18 as
well as P.W.14, is of the view that the prosecution has
proved the charge of rape on the Appellant beyond all
reasonable doubt. There is no material placed to
disbelieve the statement of P.W.5. It is also the view of
this court that a lady of 80 years will depose falsehood
about the charge, against a boy of 26 years.
5.2. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order of conviction and sentence, so passed
against him vide the impugned judgment
dt.10.09.2019. While not inclined to interfere with the
said order of conviction and sentence, but taking into
account the age of the victim vis-Ã -vis the age of the
appellant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice
will be met, if the appellant will be convicted and
Page 13 of 14
// 14 //
sentenced to undergo the minimum sentence so
prescribed for the offence under Section 376(1)of the
I.P.C. This Court accordingly is only inclined to impose
the minimum sentence of 10 (ten) years in place of
12(twelve) years on the Appellant for the offence under
Section 376(1) of the I.P.C.
5.3. The Appeal accordingly stands disposed of with the
aforesaid modification of the sentence for the offence
under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C.
6. Appeal stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 7th April, 2026 /Sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 08-Apr-2026 19:44:03
Page 14 of 14
