Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Behera @ Ramesh vs State Of Odisha & Anr 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.1024 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).
Ramesh Chandra Behera @ Ramesh .... Appellant (s)
Behera
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prasanta Nanda, Adv.
Mr. R.C. Maharana, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-19.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Appeal has been
preferred by the Appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this
Court. The appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and
Order of Sentence dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Cuttack, in
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
Spl. G.R. Case No. 08 of 2025 arising out of Purighat P.S. Case No. 08
of 2025. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant was found guilty
and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and
118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as under Section
12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Upon such conviction, the learned Trial Court sentenced the
Appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for
the offence under Section 126(2) of the BNS, rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 2 years for the offence under Section 118(1) of the BNS,
and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years along with a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence
under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The learned Trial Court further
directed that the aforesaid sentences shall run consecutively.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) As revealed from the case record, the prosecution case originates
from an F.I.R. lodged on 07.01.2025 by the father of the victim
before the I.I.C., Purighat Police Station, alleging that on
06.01.2025 at about 6:40 P.M., his daughter, aged about 15 years,
had left home to attend her tuition classes at Bakhrabad.
(ii) It is alleged that while the victim was proceeding to her tuition
classes and had reached near Manikghosh Bazar Road, the
accused assaulted her with a sharp-cutting weapon with an
intention to kill, causing bleeding injuries on her head, neck,
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
nose, and hand. Following the incident, she was immediately
shifted to City Hospital, Cuttack for treatment and, owing to the
seriousness of her injuries, was subsequently referred to SCB
Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for advanced medical
care.
(iii) It is further alleged that the accused had been persistently
harassing the victim for a considerable period prior to the
occurrence and that, on earlier occasions, two criminal cases
bearing Purighat P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024 and Purighat P.S. Case
No. 123 of 2024 had been registered against him on allegations
of a similar nature.
(iv) It is further alleged that although the accused had been released
on bail in the earlier cases, he continued to approach the victim
and allegedly harassed her by repeatedly expressing his desire
to establish a love relationship whenever she was going to
school or attending tuition classes. The prosecution asserts that,
upon being consistently rebuffed by the victim, the accused
committed the present offence against her.
(v) Acting upon the aforesaid report, Purighat P.S. Case No. 08 of
2025 was registered and investigation was taken up. During the
course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the
place of occurrence, examined the victim and other witnesses
acquainted with the facts of the case, arranged for the medical
examination of the victim, seized the alleged weapon of offence,
namely a straight razor, arrested the accused, collected the
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
injury report, seized the relevant biological samples, obtained a
query report from the Medical Officer regarding the possibility
of the injuries having been caused by the seized weapon, and
forwarded the biological exhibits for chemical examination.
(vi) Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 351(3) and 78 of the BNS
read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the learned
trial Court, on finding a prima facie case, framed charges against
the accused for the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
(vii) Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court found the
Appellant guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2) and 118(1) of the BNS as well as Section 12
of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him accordingly.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Appellant has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the
present criminal appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
4. The learned counsel for the Appellant respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellant submits that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23Act, Cuttack, in Spl. G.R. Case No. 08 of 2025 arising out of P.S.
Case No. 08 dated 07.01.2025, are contrary to the evidence
available on record, suffer from serious factual and legal
infirmities, and have been rendered without proper appreciation
of the material evidence and settled principles of law.
(ii) It is contended that the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court are perverse, unsustainable, and unsupported by the
prosecution evidence, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the impugned judgment
of conviction and consequential order of sentence, including the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment and imposition of fine, be set
aside by this Court.
(iii) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has
failed to properly appreciate the evidence and materials brought
on record and has proceeded to record the order of conviction
on an erroneous assessment of the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is contended that the findings returned by the learned
Court below are contrary to the weight of the evidence and
suffer from manifest infirmities.
(iv) The learned Trial Court has failed to adhere to the cardinal
principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the settled
standards governing appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial,
and has overlooked material inconsistencies and deficiencies in
the prosecution case. Consequently, the impugned judgment of
conviction is vitiated by misappreciation of evidence and non-
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
application of the settled principles of law, rendering the same
legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
(v) The Appellant contends that the prosecution case was registered
on 07.01.2025, charge was framed on 26.03.2025, and the
prosecution evidence commenced on 09.04.2025. It is submitted
that the learned Trial Court, in undue haste to conclude the
proceedings, closed the trial and reserved the matter for
judgment on 26.08.2025 without affording the Appellant a fair
and reasonable opportunity to adduce defence evidence and
effectively present his case. Thereafter, the impugned judgment
was pronounced on 30.08.2025.
(vi) The Appellant submits that such an expedited and truncated
procedure has resulted in serious prejudice to his defence and is
contrary to the settled principles governing criminal trials.
While expeditious disposal of cases is desirable, the same cannot
be achieved at the cost of procedural fairness and the valuable
rights of an accused.
(vii) The concept of a “pre-determined” or “pre-concluded” trial is
wholly alien to the criminal justice system and strikes at the very
root of the guarantee of a fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. It is contended that the denial of
adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence and effectively
contest the prosecution case has occasioned a failure of justice,
thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and order of
conviction.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
(viii) The Appellant further contends that the manner in which the
impugned judgment has been rendered gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that the learned Trial Court proceeded
with a predetermined approach towards the guilt of the
Appellant, rather than evaluating the evidence on record in an
impartial and judicious manner.
(ix) It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the
evidence in its proper perspective, overlooked material
inconsistencies and circumstances favourable to the defence,
and adopted a selective appreciation of the prosecution
evidence. As a consequence, the findings recorded are contrary
to the evidence available on record and suffer from perversity.
The impugned judgment, being founded on erroneous
assumptions and misappreciation of evidence, has resulted in
grave prejudice to the Appellant and is therefore liable to be set
aside.
(x) The Appellant submits that the prosecution case stands vitiated
on account of a fundamentally defective and incomplete
investigation, resulting in a serious infraction of the
constitutional guarantee of a fair investigation, which forms an
integral facet of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is contended that the specific defence
plea that the victim had voluntarily communicated with the
Appellant through WhatsApp, Instagram, and other social
media platforms was neither properly investigated by the
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
Investigating Officer nor duly considered by the learned Trial
Court while appreciating the evidence on record.
(xi) The Appellant further submits that despite the defence raising a
specific plea regarding the existence of electronic
communications exchanged between the victim and the
Appellant, the Investigating Officer failed to collect, preserve,
seize, or subject such digital evidence to forensic examination. It
is specifically contended that messages allegedly sent by the
victim from the mobile phones of her father and mother to the
Appellant were never seized, recovered, or brought on record
during the course of investigation. Such material evidence,
having a direct bearing on the nature of the relationship
between the parties and the defence version of the case, was
deliberately or negligently ignored.
(xii) It is submitted that the failure of the investigating agency to
collect and examine material electronic evidence has resulted in
a one-sided and incomplete investigation, thereby causing
serious prejudice to the defence. The learned Trial Court further
erred in overlooking this vital deficiency in the prosecution case.
Consequently, the conviction recorded on the basis of such an
unfair and incomplete investigation is unsustainable in law and
liable to be set aside.
(xiii) The Appellant further submits that the investigation conducted
in the present case was perfunctory, incomplete, and lacking in
the degree of fairness and diligence expected in a criminal
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
prosecution. It is contended that vital electronic evidence,
including call detail records (CDRs), call recordings, mobile
phone data, and other relevant digital records, which could have
materially assisted in arriving at the truth, were neither properly
collected nor brought on record by the Investigating Officer. The
withholding and non-production of such material evidence has
caused serious prejudice to the defence and has deprived the
Court of the best available evidence for a just adjudication of the
case.
(xiv) The Appellant contends that specific suggestions were put to the
prosecution witnesses regarding the defective and perfunctory
nature of the investigation. However, the learned Trial Court
failed to adequately examine or address these material
infirmities and proceeded to record the conviction without
considering the adverse impact of such lapses on the
prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has thus overlooked
significant deficiencies in the investigation which go to the root
of the matter.
(xv) The Appellant contends that the learned Trial Court itself has
recorded a categorical finding in the impugned judgment
that, “Hence, it cannot be inferred from the given circumstances that
the accused had caused injuries to the victim with the intention or
knowledge that the hurt was likely to be caused to the victim to cause
her death or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her
death so as to implicate him …”. Having returned such a finding,
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
the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal
consequences flowing therefrom and proceeded to convict the
Appellant on findings which are inconsistent with its own
conclusions on material aspects of the prosecution case.
(xvi) The Appellant further contends that while acquitting him of the
charge under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
the learned Trial Court nevertheless proceeded to hold that the
Appellant had voluntarily caused hurt to the victim by using a
sharp razor. It is submitted that such a finding is contrary to the
evidence available on record and is unsupported by any cogent,
reliable, or legally admissible evidence adduced during the
course of trial.
(xvii) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has
itself recorded a specific finding in the impugned judgment
that “neither the victim nor other witnesses had stated anything as to
whether any alarm was caused to the victim for the alleged occurrence.
The evidence of the victim is silent as to whether the accused had
threatened her with any injury to her person, reputation or property,
or to any person in whom she was interested, with the intent to cause
alarm to her.”
(xviii) The Appellant contends that the learned Trial Court has
recorded a categorical finding in the impugned judgment
that “the victim only deposed about a single occurrence when the
accused had harassed her by uttering words against her. The evidence
is not sufficient to establish that the accused had been repeatedly
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
following the victim or attempting to contact or communicate with her
so as to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of
disinterest.”
(xix) The Appellant contends that the aforesaid finding goes to the
root of the prosecution case and clearly demonstrates the
absence of essential ingredients necessary to establish the
allegation of criminal intimidation or any related offence
founded upon threat or coercion. Once the learned Trial Court
found that there was no evidence regarding any threat, intention
to cause alarm, or actual alarm being caused to the victim, it
ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the Appellant in
respect of all allegations dependent upon such foundational
facts.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
5. 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. It is, therefore, humbly
prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23the 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 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 126(2) &
118 of the BNS, 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
sufficient in itself 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 come to the
conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence as
alleged.
(iv) It is further contended on behalf of the Respondent that
on 06.01.2025, at about 6:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., while the victim
was heading to attend her tuition classes at Bakhrabad, the
Appellant allegedly approached her from behind and urged her
to elope with him. It is submitted that the victim unequivocally
declined the said proposal and refused to accompany the
Appellant. According to the Respondent, the said incident forms
part of the chain of circumstances demonstrating the Appellant’s
unwelcome advances and persistent conduct towards the
victim.
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
(v) It is further contended on behalf of the Respondent that, upon
the victim refusing to accede to the Appellant’s proposal, the
Appellant allegedly threatened her by stating, “Tu mora jadi na
hebu, kahara hebu nu” (if you do not become mine, you shall
belong to no one). It is submitted that, immediately thereafter,
the Appellant, with the intention of causing her death, assaulted
the victim with a sharp-cutting weapon, namely a Khura, and
inflicted multiple cut injuries on her nose, hands, and head.
(vi) It is further alleged that the Appellant made a further attempt to
slash her neck with the said weapon. As a consequence of the
assault, the victim sustained grievous bleeding injuries and
collapsed at the spot. Upon witnessing the occurrence, members
of the public immediately rushed to the place of occurrence,
intervened, and rescued the victim from the Appellant, thereby
preventing further harm.
(vii) It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that, immediately
after the commission of the alleged offence, the Appellant fled
from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the persons present at
the spot informed the victim’s father about the incident, who
promptly arrived at the scene and shifted the injured victim to
City Hospital, Cuttack, for immediate medical attention.
(viii) Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by her, she
was subsequently referred and shifted to S.C.B. Medical College
and Hospital, Cuttack, where she underwent further treatment.
It is submitted that the victim had sustained multiple bleeding
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
injuries and required suturing of the wounds, thereby
corroborating the prosecution case regarding the nature and
gravity of the assault allegedly committed by the Appellant.
(ix) It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the victim is not
only a minor child but also an injured witness. It is contended
that the testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary
value and ordinarily commands a higher degree of credibility,
particularly when it is found to be cogent, consistent, and
trustworthy.
(x) The victim’s evidence, being natural and intrinsic to the
occurrence, inspires confidence and stands duly corroborated by
the surrounding circumstances as well as the medical evidence
on record. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court
has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its
proper perspective and has, on the basis of the materials
available on record, justifiably recorded the conviction of the
Appellant under the relevant provisions of law.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM- SPECIAL COURT
UNDER POCSO ACT, CUTTACK:
6. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 126(2) & 118(1)
of the BNS and Section 12 of the POCSO Act on the allegation that he
had committed assault on the victim.
7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the learned Trial Court held that sufficient materials were available to
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23substantiate 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 assault on the victim.
Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the charges under Section
126(2) & 118(1) of the BNS as well as Section 12 of POCSO Act stood
proved.
8. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the learned
Trial Court observed that there existed no justifiable or cogent ground
to disbelieve the prosecution case that the accused had followed the
victim, approached and addressed her with an unwelcome proposal
motivated by sexual intent against her will, and thereafter assaulted
her with a sharp-edged weapon, namely a razor (Khura), inflicting
multiple incised injuries on different parts of her body. The Court
further held that the ocular testimony of the victim, duly corroborated
by the medical and other attendant evidence on record, established
the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, thereby warranting the
conviction of the accused under the relevant provisions of law.
9. The Court further observed that the testimonies of the parents of the
victim, insofar as they relate to the circumstances surrounding the
occurrence and its immediate aftermath, are relevant and lend
substantial support to the prosecution case. Their evidence finds
material corroboration from the testimony of the independent
witnesses, whose accounts are consistent and inspire confidence.
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
10. The medical evidence on record further fortifies and corroborates the
ocular version of the prosecution by affirming the nature, location,
and extent of the injuries sustained by the victim, thereby lending
assurance to the genuineness and truthfulness of the alleged
occurrence. Consequently, the oral and documentary evidence, when
read conjointly, forms a coherent and unbroken chain establishing the
prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Court
concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the
offence under Section 126(2) & 118(1) of the BNS and Section 12 of the
POCSO Act.
12. Consequently, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for the offence under
Section 126(2) of the BNS, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2
years for the offence under Section 118(1) of the BNS, and rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 2 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-,
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under
Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The Court further directed that the
aforesaid sentences shall run consecutively.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
13. Upon bestowing anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar, and upon an independent and
comprehensive reappraisal of the entire evidentiary record, this Court
finds that the learned Trial Court has meticulously analyzed the oral
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23
and documentary evidence on record in its proper perspective. The
impugned judgment meticulously analysed the oral and documentary
evidence on record in its proper perspective. The impugned judgment
manifests a judicious and reasoned appreciation of evidence, firmly
anchored in the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence.
The findings of conviction recorded therein are based on cogent,
reliable and legally admissible evidence, and do not suffer from any
perversity, illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
14. The determination of the age of the victim assumes paramount
significance in criminal prosecutions involving minor victims, as it
constitutes a foundational jurisdictional and factual requirement for
attracting the applicability of the relevant penal provisions. The age of
the victim is often the decisive factor in determining the nature and
extent of the criminal liability to be fastened upon the accused and the
substantive offences for which he is liable to be tried.
15. Consequently, the process of age determination forms an integral and
indispensable component of the criminal justice system in cases
concerning child victims, and the Courts are under a legal obligation
to ascertain the age of the victim on the basis of reliable, cogent, and
legally admissible evidence before recording any finding on
culpability. The correctness of such determination has a direct bearing
on the applicability of the statutory provisions invoked and, therefore,
assumes considerable evidentiary and legal significance.
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
16. The statutory scheme governing the determination of the age of a
victim in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 unequivocally underscores the significance of
ascertaining whether the victim falls within the definition of a “child.”
Section 2(d) of the said Act defines a “child” to mean any person who
has not attained the age of eighteen years. Further, whenever a question
arises before the Special Court as to whether a person is a child, the
Court is under a statutory obligation to determine such question upon
being duly satisfied regarding the age of the person concerned and to
record reasons in support of such determination.
17. It is equally well settled that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prescribes the statutory
methodology for determination of age, which has consistently been
applied by the Courts while determining the age of a victim in
prosecutions under the POCSO Act. The provision contemplates a
hierarchical mode of age determination, assigning primacy to
documentary evidence such as the birth certificate issued by the
competent authority or the matriculation or equivalent certificate, and
only in the absence thereof does the Court resort to other legally
permissible modes of age determination. The determination of age,
therefore, is not a matter of conjecture or surmise but must rest upon
cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence in strict conformity
with the statutory mandate.
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
18. The Court places relance in the Supreme Court decision in
Yuvaprakash P v. State rep. by inspector of police,1, wherein it has
been held that:
“16. Speaking about the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
Act, especially the various options in Section 94(2) of the JJ
Act, this Court held in Sanjeev Jumar Gupta v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.2, “Clause (i) of Section
94(2) places the date of birth certificate from school and the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination board in the same category (namely (i) above).
In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining
the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority
or panchayat. It is only in the absence of 9i) and (ii) that a
age determination by means of medical analysis is provided.
Section 94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the
provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the
matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence
and it was only in the event of the certificate not being
available that the date of birth certificate from the school
first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the
date of birth certificate from the school as well as the
matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the
same category.”
19. In the present case, upon a careful scrutiny and appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial
Court has placed reliance upon the birth certificate of the victim for
the purpose of determining her age. The said document, being a
primary and legally admissible piece of evidence, has rightly been
accorded due evidentiary value in consonance with the statutory
scheme governing age determination. As revealed from the birth
1 2023 KHC 6709
2 2019 (9) SCR 735
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
certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 30.09.2009, whereas the
alleged occurrence took place on 06.01.2025.
20. Consequently, on the date of the occurrence, the victim had
admittedly not attained the age of eighteen years and, therefore,
squarely fell within the definition of a “child” as contemplated under
Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The finding recorded by the
learned Trial Court regarding the age of the victim is thus founded
upon cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence and suffers
from neither perversity nor any legal infirmity. Accordingly, this
Court finds no reason to take a view different from that arrived at by
the learned Trial Court on the question of the victim’s age.
21. It is a well-settled and oft-reiterated principle of criminal
jurisprudence that, in prosecutions involving offences of assault or
sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be cogent,
credible, consistent, and of sterling quality, is by itself sufficient to
sustain a conviction, even in the absence of independent
corroboration. The evidence of the victim stands on no lesser footing
than that of an injured witness and is entitled to great evidentiary
weight. If her testimony inspires confidence and is free from material
contradictions, embellishments, or inherent improbabilities, the Court
may safely act upon such sole testimony to record a finding of guilt.
Corroboration, though desirable in an appropriate case, is not an
inflexible rule of law but merely a rule of prudence, and the absence
thereof does not, by itself, render the prosecution case doubtful or
unworthy of acceptance.
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
22. This Court is mindful of the settled principle that every criminal trial
is, in essence, a quest for truth and justice. It is the solemn duty of the
Court to undertake a careful, objective, and comprehensive
appreciation of the entire body of oral and documentary evidence,
viewed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
case. The Court is required to evaluate the evidence in its proper
perspective, uninfluenced by conjectures or technicalities, and to
arrive at its conclusions on the touchstone of reason, logic, and the
settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, so that justice is not only
done but is manifestly seen to have been done. The ultimate
endeavour of the Court is to discover the truth and to ensure that the
guilty are appropriately dealt with while simultaneously safeguarding
the rights of the innocent in accordance with the procedure
established by law.
23. A careful scrutiny of the medical evidence available on record further
lends substantial assurance to the prosecution case. It is borne out
from the testimony of P.W.6, the Medical Officer who first examined
the victim on the date of the occurrence, that the victim had sustained
multiple incised wounds in a bleeding condition. The Medical Officer
further opined that the injuries were fresh in nature and had been
caused within approximately thirty minutes to one hour prior to the
medical examination, which substantially coincides with the time of
the alleged occurrence. The medical findings, therefore, provide
contemporaneous corroboration to the ocular version of the
prosecution.
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
24. The evidence of P.W.9, the Medical Officer attached to S.C.B. Medical
College and Hospital, Cuttack, further fortifies the prosecution case.
P.W.9 deposed that, upon examination of the victim on the very same
day, he noticed multiple injuries on different parts of her body and,
considering the nature and gravity of the injuries, referred her for
further evaluation and treatment in the concerned speciality ward.
The witness further categorically opined that the injuries found on the
person of the victim were capable of being caused by the razor (Khura)
produced and examined during the course of investigation. The
medical opinion thus stands in complete harmony with the ocular
testimony and constitutes strong corroborative evidence establishing
the manner of assault alleged by the prosecution.
25. This Court further finds from the evidence available on record that the
conduct attributed to the Appellant was not confined to the incident
in question but formed part of a continuing course of unwelcome and
objectionable behaviour towards the victim. The materials on record
disclose that, even prior to the occurrence, the Appellant had
allegedly subjected the victim to acts of harassment and misconduct,
thereby demonstrating a persistent pattern of inappropriate conduct.
26. It has further come in evidence that, on the date of the occurrence, the
Appellant approached the victim and attempted to persuade her to
elope with him, manifestly actuated by an improper and unlawful
intent. Upon the victim’s unequivocal refusal, the Appellant allegedly
threatened her by uttering the words, “Tu mora jadi na hebu, kahara
hebu nu” (if you do not become mine, you shall belong to no one),
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
which unmistakably evince a possessive, intimidating, and menacing
disposition. The aforesaid circumstances, when appreciated
cumulatively, constitute a significant incriminating circumstance,
lending assurance to the prosecution case and furnishing the motive
and antecedent conduct culminating in the commission of the alleged
offence.
27. Upon a cumulative appreciation of the entire oral and documentary
evidence available on record, this Court finds no justifiable or cogent
reason to disbelieve the prosecution case that the Appellant had
followed the victim, wrongfully intercepted her, and addressed her
with unwelcome remarks and gestures actuated by sexual intent,
against her will and without her consent. The evidence further
establishes that the Appellant obstructed the victim from proceeding
on her way and subjected her to acts intended to outrage her dignity
and modesty. It has also come in evidence that, upon the victim
resisting his advances, the Appellant assaulted her with a sharp-
edged razor (Khura), inflicting multiple incised injuries on different
parts of her body.
28. The aforesaid prosecution version is not founded merely upon the
solitary testimony of the victim but stands amply corroborated by the
contemporaneous medical evidence, the documentary records, and
the testimony of the independent witnesses, all of which are consistent
with and lend substantial assurance to the occurrence as alleged. The
medical reports conclusively establish the nature, extent, and timing
of the injuries sustained by the victim, while the independent
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
witnesses corroborate the material particulars of the prosecution case.
The evidence, when appreciated in its entirety, forms a complete and
coherent chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt
of the Appellant and leaves no reasonable ground to discredit the
prosecution version.
VI. CONCLUSION:
29. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious and careful
consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.08.2025, passed by the learned Additional
District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack, passed
in Spl. G.R. Case No. 08/2025 arising out of Purighat P.S. Case No.
08/2025, are founded upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and
a correct application of the governing legal principles. The impugned
judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity
warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this Court is not
inclined to accede to the relief prayed for.
30. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed.
31. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.SanjeebK Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th July, 2026/
Page 24
