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: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1051 of 2024
(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).
Abinash Digal @ Papun Digal .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Soumyajit Biswoprakash, Adv.
Mr. G.R. Dhal, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
Ms. Barsharani Sahoo, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-17.02.2026
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 01.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani, in C.T. Case
No.56 of 2021 arising out of Raikia P.S. Case No.82 of 2021, whereby
the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 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) On 26.08.2021, at about 3 PM, the informant, along with the
victim, her parents, and her cousin sister, was travelling from
the village Raikia to G. Udayagiri in a Pakhiraj Bus. During the
journey, the victim was seated on the right-side window seat of
the said bus.
(ii) The Victim alleged that at the relevant time, while the bus was
parked in from of the UCO- Bank Chowk, an unknown person
approached from outside the bus and pressed breast.
(iii) Due to the said incident, the victim raised alarm, whereupon the
informant immediately alighted from the bus and attempted to
apprehend the said person. However, the said person assaulted
the informant and forcibly took away a sum of Rs 5000/- from
his purse. Subsequently, they ascertained the said person was
Abinash @ Papu Digal of village Gedingia.
(iv) On that basis of the written report lodged by the informant,
Raikia P.S. Case No. 82 of 2021 was registered against the
accused. During the investigation, the I.O visited the spot,
examined the witness, and recorded their statements under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The I.O. also took into consideration the
relevant documents relating to the age of the victim and found
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
that she was aged about 17 years 5 months and 8 days at the
time of the incident.
(v) Subsequently, charges under Section 354 and 392 of the I.P.C.
r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act has been framed against the
Appellant. Thereafter, trial commenced before the learned Trial
Court. Upon completion of the trial and after hearing the
arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned Trial Court
convicted the Appellant under Section 354 of I.P.C. and under
Section 8 of the POCSO Act and acquitted him of the charges of
Section 392 of IPC.
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 submits that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Phulbani passed in C.T. No. 56 of 2021 arising
out of P.S. Case No. 82 of 2021, corresponding to C.T. Case No.
56 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Session
Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani, whereby
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment along with imposition of fine, is wholly
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42erroneous, unsustainable both on facts and in law, and is liable
to be set aside.
(ii) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has
failed to properly appreciate the materials and evidences
available on record and thereby erroneously recorded the order
of conviction. It is contended that the learned Court below has
not applied the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and
the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence, as a
result of which the impugned judgment has become legally
unsustainable.
(iii) The Appellant contends that the learned Trial Court ought to
have disbelieved the entire prosecution case in view of the
material contradictions between the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses before the Court and their statements
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which, according to the
Appellant, go to the root of the matter and render the
prosecution story unreliable.
(iv) The Appellant further contends that the learned Trial Court
failed to take note of the fact that, although the alleged place of
occurrence is a crowded locality, neither any independent
witness from the vincity nor any co-passenger of the Pakhiraj
bus was cited or examined on behalf of the prosecution, which
casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.
(v) The Appellant further contends that a careful analysis of the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses would reveal that the
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
learned Trial Court was not justified in convicting the
Appellant. It is submitted that P.W.1, victim, in her cross
examination, admitted that she stated before the police that an
unknown person had squeezed her right-side breast. According
to the Appellant, this admission materially contradicts the F.I.R.,
wherein the accused had been specifically named in the
complaint, thereby creating serious doubt about the prosecution
case.
(vi) The Appellant further contends that the victim, in her cross
examination, stated that the window glass of the said bus
commenced approximately six inches below her shoulder level.
In view of such evidence, it is submitted that it is highly
doubtful that the Appellant could have squeezed her right-side
breast from outside the bus in the manner alleged, thereby
rendering the prosecution version improbable.
(vii) The Appellant submits that the informant, namely the victim’s
father, has stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused
suddenly came from an autorickshaw and squeezed and pulled
the right-side breast of the victim. It is contended that this
version is false and fabricated. According to the Appellant,
when the victim herself did not state that she had seen the
accused coming from the autorickshaw, and when the informant
claims to have been standing near the bus at the relevant time, it
is highly improbable as to how he could have specifically
noticed that the accused came from an autorickshaw. This
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
discrepancy, it is submitted, creates serious doubt about the
credibility of the prosecution case.
(viii) The Appellant further submits that P.W.3 has claimed to have
seen the accused; however, such a claim is doubtful inasmuch as
she stated in her examination-in-chief that it was her husband
who had chased the accused and she herself. Therefore, it is
highly probable that she had not actually seen the accused at the
spot of occurrence. It is further contended that the deposition of
P.W.4 carries no relevance or evidentiary weight, as he has no
direct knowledge of the alleged incident and his evidence is not
based on personal observation.
(ix) It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to take
note of the fact that, although P.W.5, after being declared hostile,
admitted about the alleged occurrence, he did not state a single
a word regarding the involvement of the present Appellant in
the said incident. According to the Appellant, the omission
materially weakens the prosecution case against him.
(x) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has
committed a grave error in convicting the Appellant,
particularly when the conductor and driver of Pakhiraj bus,
namely P.W.6 and P.W.7 respectively, were declared hostile and
did not utter a single word against the present appellant, such
material witness not supporting the prosecution case, creates
serious doubt the correctness of the conviction.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
(xi) The Appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to
take a note of the essential ingredients of the offences under
Section 7 of the POCSO Act, particularly “Sexual Intent” on the
part of the Appellant. It is contended that in the absence of any
material to establish sexual intent, the foundational requirement
of the offence is not satisfied, and consequently, the conviction
under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is not sustainable in law.
(xii) In the present case, the Appellant submits that the entire
proceeding conducted against him is violation of the provisions
of law and other applicable enactments. It is further contended
that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
01.10.2024 is otherwise illegal and erroneous, and as such, the
same is liable to be set-aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the
submission that the present CRLA deserves to be rejected in limine.
(i) The Respondent submits that, the learned Trial Court, upon
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available 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
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42the 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 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 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 P.W.5, though at the first instance
denied the occurrence, subsequently admitted that on 26.08.2021
Pakhiraj Bus had halted in front of UCO Bank, Raikia, and after
some time, the father of the girl got down from the bus and
enquired about the name and address of the accused, informing
him that the said had misbehaved his daughter. It is further
submitted that in the present-day society context, it is not
uncommon for independent witnesses to refrain from coming
forward to support an incident that takes place in their presence,
and such reluctance cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the
otherwise reliable prosecution evidence.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
(v) The Respondent further submits that nothing has been elicited
in the cross-examination to suggest that there existed any prior
enmity between the victim and her family members on one side
and the accused on the other side. In absence of any such
material, there is no basis to conclude that the victim would
falsely implicate the accused in the alleged occurrence.
(vi) The Respondent contends that “sexual intent” is essence of the
offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and the
same can be inferred from the conduct of the accused even in
the absence of prolonged or direct skin to skin contact. It is
submitted that the manner in which the accused allegedly
pressed the breast of the victim by putting his hand through the
window of the bus from outside clearly demonstrates his
intention to outrage the modesty. Therefore, according to the
Respondent, the prosecution has successfully established the
charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC),
KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI:
5. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 354, 392 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act on the
allegation that the accused had committed sexual assault upon the
victim. Upon conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted under
Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and, was acquitted
of the charge under Section 392 of IPC.
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
6. 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 sexual assault and had
assaulted the victim with the intent to outrage the modesty.
Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the charges under Section 354
of IPC as well as Section 8 of POCSO Act stood proved.
7. In order to bring home the charge under Section 354 of IPC thereof,
the prosecution is required to establish that the accused, with criminal
or sexual intent, assaulted or used criminal force against a woman,
thereby outraging or intending to outrage her modesty. In the instant
case, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is stated to be
clear and cogent in demonstrating that the accused pressed the right-
side breast of the victim, thereby causing alarm and outrage to her
modesty. Accordingly, it is submitted that the prosecution has
successfully proved the charge under 354 of IPC against the accused
persons.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Court
concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the
offence under Section 354 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Consequently, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
5,000/- in default whereof he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two months.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
9. The foundational and determinative question that arises for
consideration in the present appeal pertains to the age of the victim as
on the date of the alleged occurrence, i.e., 26.08.2021. The age of the
victim assumes pivotal significance particularly in view of the charge
under the POCSO Act, wherein minority of the victim constitutes a
sine qua non for attracting the penal provisions. The learned Trial
Court upon due and proper appreciation of the evidence on record,
has placed reliance on the matriculation certificate and other
contemporaneous educational records produced by the prosecution.
Such documents, being primary and admissible evidence of age, were
duly proved in accordance with law. On the basis thereof, the learned
Trial Court recorded categorical finding that the victim was below
eighteen years of age at the relevant point of time.
10. 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 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
placed by the learned Trial Court, and the conclusion regarding the
minority of the victim des not suffer any legal or factual error.
11. In the case at hand, no credible or substantive material has been
brought on record by the defense to impeach or discredit the
authenticity of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
with regard to the age of the victim. There is no material
contradiction, interpolation, or infirmity demonstrated in the
matriculation certificate or the allied educational records so as to
render the same doubtful or unreliable.
12. In absence of any cogent rebuttal evidence, the evidentiary value and
the statutory presumption attached to such duly proved the
documentary evidence remains intact and unimpeached. The defence
has failed to lay any factual foundation to dislodge the probative
worth of the said documents. Consequently, the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court that the victim was a minor, being aged about
of 17 years 5 months and 8 days at the time of commission of the
offence, stands firmly established on the touchstone of settled legal
principles governing proof of age, and does not warrant interference.
13. While adverting to the challenge so raised, it is apposite ad profitable
to refer to Section 7 of the POCO Act, 2012. Which defines “Sexual
Assault”, the provision postulates that “whoever, with sexual intent
touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch
the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does
any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without
penetration is said to commit sexual assault”.
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
14. A plain and purposive reading of the said provision indicate that the
Legislature has contemplated three distinct contingencies:
(i) Direct touching of the specified private parts of a child with
sexual intent;
(ii) Making the child touch such parts of the accused or any other
person; and
(iii) Doing any act with sexual intent which involves physical
contact without penetration.
The third limb of the provisions couched in broad terms so as to
encompass acts which, though not amounting to penetrative
assault, nevertheless involve physical contact actuated by sexual
intent. In the instant case, the evidence on record prima facie
establishes that the Appellant caused physical contact with the
victim child by pressing her right side breast while she was seated
inside the bus. Such an act, by its very nature, squarely falls within
the ambit of Section 7 of the Act, being an act involving physical
contact with sexual intent without penetration. Accordingly, the
essential ingredients of “sexual assault” as defined under the
statute stand satisfied.
15. The learned Trial Court has placed reliance upon Section 29 and 30 of
the POCSO Act, which incorporate statutory presumptions with
regard to culpable mental state and the commission of the offence
once foundational facts are established. Section 29 raises a
presumption as to the commission of the offence, whereas Section 30
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
deals with the presumption of culpable mental state, including the
existence of intention, knowledge or motive, unless the contrary is
proved by the accused. Having regard to the overt acts alleged and
proved, which falls within the ambit of Section 7 of the POCSO Act,
which states that, whoever does any act with sexual intent which
involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual
assault, to hold that prima facie offence of sexual assault with sexual
intent is foreseeable in this matter.
16. The learned Trial Court held that the foundational facts necessary to
attract the statutory presumptions stood established. Consequently,
the presumptions to sexual intent became operative against the
accused, who failed to rebut the same by adducing cogent evidence.
In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court rightly concluded
that a prima facie case of sexual assault with the requisite intent was
made out in the present case, warranting conviction under the
relevant provision of the Act.
17. For the proper interpretation of Section 7 of the POCSO Act, it is
instructive to advert to the plain and grammatical meaning of the
expressions employed therein. The Legislature has consciously used
the term ‘touches’ in reference to specific and intimate parts of the
body, while employing border expression “physical contact” in
relation to any other act done with sexual intent without penetration.
18. A purposive and contextual construction of the provision would,
thereof, make it manifest that any act of touching the specified sexual
parts of the body of a child, if actuated by sexual intent, squarely falls
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
withing the ambit of the “sexual assault” as defined under Section 7 of
the Act. The distinction in phraseology underscores the legislative
intent to widen the protective umbrella so as to cover not only direct
contact with enumerated parts but also other forms of sexually
motivated physical intrusions. Such conduct constitutes an
unacceptable range of behaviour that invades and undermines the
dignity, bodily integrity and autonomy of a child through
unwarranted and non-consensual intrusion. The statutory scheme,
thus seeks to criminalise and deter all acts which compromise the
physical and psychological sanctity of a child.
19. The contention that in the absence of skin-to-skin contact the act
would not constitute sexual assault is no longer res integra. The
Supreme Court has unequivocally clarified that a narrow or pedantic
interpretation to Section 7 of the POCSO Act that would defeat the
very object and purpose of the enactment. In the Attorney General for
India v. Satish & Anr,3, wherein it has been held that:
“33….. the rule of construction contained in the maxim
“Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat”, the
construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather
than destroying it. Any narrow and pedantic
interpretation of the provision which would defeat the
object of the provision, cannot be accepted. It is also
needless to say that where the intention of the Legislature
cannot be given effect to, the courts would accept the
bolder construction for the purpose of bringing about an
effective result. Restricting the interpretation of the
words “touch” or “physical touch” to “skin to skin”
3
(2021) INSC 762; SLP (CRL) No. 925 of 2021
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
would not only be a narrow and pedantic interpretation
of the provision contained in Section 7 of the POCSO
Act, but it would lead to an absurd interpretation of the
said provision. “Skin to skin contact” for constituting an
offence of “sexual assault” could not have been intended
or contemplated by the legislature. The very object of
enacting POCSO Act is to protect the children from
sexual abuse, and if such a narrow interpretation is
accepted, it would lead to very determinable situation,
frustrating the very object of the Act, inasmuch as in that
case touching the sexual or non sexual parts of the body
of a child with gloves, condoms, sheets or with cloth,
though done with sexual intent would amount to an
offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO
Act. The most important ingredient for constituting the
offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the
“sexual intent” and not the “skin to skin” contact with
the child.”
20. On the aspect of the outraging the modesty of women where the act
complained of is actuated by criminal or sexual intent, the legal
position is well settled. The concept of “modesty” under Section 354 of
IPC has been authoritatively interpreted by the Full Bench of the
Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Major Singh,4, wherein it has
been held that:
“15. The offence punishable under Section 354 is an
assault on or use of criminal force to a woman with the
intention of outraging her modesty or with the
knowledge of the likelihood of doing so. The Code does not
define “modesty”. What then is a woman’s modesty?
16…… the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The
modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body.
4
AIR 1967 SC 63
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping,
the woman possesses a modesty capable of being
outraged. Whoever uses criminal force to her with the
intent to outrage her modesty commits an offence
punishable under Section 354. The culpable intention of
the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the
woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always
decisive,…. A female of tender age stands on a somewhat
different footing. Her body is immature, and her sexual
powers are dormant…. Nevertheless, from her very birth
she possess the modesty which is the attribute of her sex.”
21. It is trite that the expression “outraging the modesty of woman” has
not been specifically defined under IPC. Judicial pronouncements
have consistently held that the essence of the woman’s modesty is her
sex, and any act which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a
woman would amount to an affront to her modesty. The gravamen of
the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC lies in the culpable
intention or knowledge of the accused that his act is likely to outrage
the modesty of a woman. The reaction of the victim is undoubtedly a
relevant circumstances; however, the absence of resistance or
immediate protest is not always decisive in determining whether the
offence has been committed.
22. In the case in hand, the victim was minor aged 17 years, 5 months and
8 days, on the date of alleged occurrence of the incident. the evidence
on record discloses that when the bus in which she was travelling
came to a halt near the UCO Bank, the accused approached from
outside and through, the window on the right-side where the victim
was seated, inserted his hand and squeezed and pulled her breast.
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
Such an act, by its very nature, is inherently an indecent and
constitutes a direct invasion of the bodily integrity of a young girl. The
manner in which the accused deliberately reached through the bus
window and committed the act clearly demonstrates the requisites
intention to outrage her modesty.
23. In such forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the act and conduct of the accused are sufficient to establish the
requisite intention to outrage the modesty of the victim, thereby
attracting the penal provision of Section 354 of IPC. The evidence on
record clearly demonstrates that the Appellant used criminal force
upon the minor child in a manner indeed to violate her modesty.
Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court with
respect to the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC warrant no
interference, as the essential ingredients of the offence stand duly
proved.
24. In the instant case, the testimony of P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 assumes the
character of such corroborative assurance to the version of the victim.
Their evidence substantiates the immediate disclosure made by the
victim and remains consistent with core narrative of the prosecution
case. Such corroboration reinforces the credibility and intrinsic worth
of the testimony of the prosecutrix and lends further assurance to the
correctness of the findings of guilt recorded against the Appellant.
25. In the present case, though several independent witnesses initially
supported the prosecution version, they were subsequently declared
hostile. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the mere fact that a witness
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
has been declared hostile does not render his entire testimony effaced
from the record; the portion of evidence which inspires confidence
and finds corroboration from other materials on record can still be
relied upon.
26. In this regard, the testimonies of the conductor of the bus (P.W. 6) and
the driver (P.W.7) of the bus assume significance. Both have deposed
that a girl from the rear row of the bus raised an alarm, whereupon
the bus was immediately brought to a halt. The evidence further
discloses that the father of the victim (P.W.2), acting upon such alarm
and identification made by the victim, attempted to apprehend the
accused; however, he latter managed to escape from the spot. The
aforesaid circumstances form a consistent chain of events and lend
corroborative assurance to the prosecution case, thereby strengthening
the substratum of the charge against the accused.
27. Similarly, the evidence of the auto rickshaw (P.W.5) assumes utmost
significant. Though at the initial stage he denied the knowledge of the
said occurrence, he subsequently admitted in his deposition that the
Pakhiraj Bus has halted in front of UCO Bank, Raikia and shortly
thereafter the father of a girl alighted from the bus and enquired from
him regarding the name and address of the accused, stating that the
latter had misbehaved with his daughter. Thus, even if the
independent witnesses have not narrated the incident in its entirety,
they have consistently supported the immediate reaction and
commotion raised by the victim. Such evidence, though not direct as
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
to the act itself, provides corroborative assurance regarding the
occurrence and strengthens the prosecution version.
28. It is a matter of common experience in contemporary society that
independent witnesses are often reluctant to come forward to depose
in support of an incident which has taken place in their presence. On
many such instances, such witnesses resile from their earlier
statements and declare hostile, which trigger some lacunae in the
prosecution case. However, such eventuality by itself does not render
the prosecution version unworthy of acceptance, nor does it absolve
the Court of its duty to shift the evidence and arrive at the truth so as
to meet the ends of justice.
29. Upon an overall and aggregated evaluation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond all reasonable
doubt, that the Appellant committed sexual assault upon the victim
during her minority. The testimony of the prosecutrix is of sterling
quality and free from material distortion. The same stands duly
corroborated by her prompt disclosure to her parents, the attendant
circumstances and other supporting evidence available on record.
30. 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
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Mar-2026 18:26:42
essential ingredients of the offences charged have been duly proved
against the Appellant, warranting affirmation of the finding of guilt.
VI. CONCLUSION:
31. 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 Additional
District and Sessions Judge- cum- Special Court under POCSO Act,
Phulbani, in C.T. Case No. 56 of 2021, do not suffer from any
illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this
Court.
32. 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
Criminal Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
Trial Courts are hereby affirmed. Consequently, this Court is not
inclined to accede to the relief prayed for by the Appellant.
33. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed.
34. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 27th February, 2026/
Page 21