IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA No.507 of 2025

Somanath Janka ..... Appellant

Represented by Adv. –

Mr. Ramesh Maharana

Mr. A.K. Moharana

-versus-

State Of Odisha ..... Respondent

Represented by Adv. –

Smt. Sasmita Nayak,

Addl. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing: 27.02.2026 : Date of Judgment:30.06.2026

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual

/Physical Mode).

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 by the convict-Appellant. By filing the present

appeal the convict-Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated

11.02.2025 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions

Judge (FTSC), Jajpur in C.T. Special (POCSO) Case No.145 of

2020. By virtue of the impugned judgment the Appellant was found

guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366

and 376(2)(n) of I.P.C read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and he

has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

Page 2 of 22.

twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty

thousand), and in default thereof, to undergo further S.I. for a period

of five years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No separate

sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 376(2)(n)

of the IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (rupees three

thousand) under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo

R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five

thousand) under Section 366 of the IPC. All the sentences shall run

concurrently.

3. Additionally the learned trial Court has awarded compensation

of Rs.7,00,000/-(rupees seven lakhs) to the victim under the ‘Odisha

Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012’. Being aggrieved by the

imposition of the aforesaid sentence and conviction under the

aforesaid sections, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. The prosecution story as culled out from the FIR is that,

initially an F.I.R was lodged by a complainant Satyabhama Badara

w/o Late Ramesh Badara on 11.12.2020 at about 11.00 A.M alleging

commission of an offence punishable under Section 363, 366,

376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The said

complaint was registered against an unknown accused person for

commission of an offence under Section 363 of IPC before the

Balichandrapur P.S, which was registered as Balichandrapur P.S.

Case No.370 dated 11.12.2020. As per the FIR allegation, the mother

of the victim has alleged that her daughter (victim), aged about 16

years, is missing since 30.11.2020. Although she tried to search for

her daughter with the help of her relatives and neighbours, she has

Page 3 of 22.

been unsuccessful in tracing out her daughter. Therefore, the

informant approached the local police and lodged a complaint which

was registered as an FIR and, accordingly, the investigation

commenced.

5. During investigation the Investigating Officer examined the

witnesses and, upon conclusion of such investigation, charge-sheet

no.54 dated 11.12.2020 was filed before the ADM-cum-Special

Judge, Jajpur alleging commission of offence punishable under

Sections 363, 366, 376(20(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of the

POCSO Act. The prosecution case, as per the charge-sheet, is that

during the investigation and spot visit, the I.O. examined the material

witnesses and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C. The I.O.

had seized the age proof certificate of the victim and both the victim

and the accused were sent for medical examination. Thereafter, the

accused Somnath Janka was arrested and forwarded to Court. The

statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the

Cr.P.C by the learned ADM-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur. As per the

supervision note by the Additional SP, Jajpur it was detected that a

cognizable case under the alleged sections had in fact taken place.

Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed.

6. After filing of the charge-sheet, the accused persons was made

to face trial. The learned trial Court, via the impugned judgment has

categorically indicated that the accused was arrested from

Bhubaneswar and the victim was rescued from the house in

Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. During trial the accused denied all the

charges and alleged false implication by Police. Accordingly, the

Page 4 of 22.

accused opted to face trial. During trial, the learned trial Court

formulated five questions which are quoted herein below:

(i) whether the victim was a minor/child under the age of 18

years at the time of occurrence?

(ii) whether this accused took away the victim girl out of the

lawful guardianship of her mother and without her consent?

(iii) whether this accused kidnapped the victim with

intent/knowledge that she will be forced or seduced into illicit

intercourse?

(iv) whether this accused committed repeated rape/

aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl?

7. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had

examined 08 witnesses, out of which P.W.1 is the victim herself,

P.W.2 is the scribe of the FIR, P.W.3 is the Informant and victim’s

mother, P.W.4 is the doctor, P.W. 5 & P.W.7 are seizure witnesses,

P.W.6 is the Headmaster of the School and P.W.8 is the I.O. The

prosecution has also relied upon 11 documents to establish the

charges levied against the accused.

8. In course of the trial, the defence took a plea that the victim

has not implicated the accused in any manner and that in her

evidence, she gave her statement before the learned Magistrate at the

instance of the Police that she was more than 18 years of age at the

time of occurrence and that the medical evidence on record does not

reveal any signs and/or symptoms of sexual intercourse committed

on the victim by the accused. Such plea of the defence was stoutly

reverted by the prosecution, by referring to the evidence collected

Page 5 of 22.

during investigation. It was the case of the prosecution that the

prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges against the

accused and that though the victim has turned hostile. However,

there are other circumstantial evidences which clearly establish a

case against the accused-appellant.

9. With regard to the age of the victim, the learned trial Court has

discussed the same succinctly in the impugned judgment. After a

thorough analysis of the evidence adduced by both sides, the learned

trial Court has come to a conclusion that it is unable to accept the

defence contention that the victim was more than 18 years at the time

of occurrence. Moreover, as per the analysis made by the learned

trial Court, it appears that the probability that the victim was around

17 years of age at the time of the occurrence, is more appropriate in

light of the facts and circumstances of the case and, accordingly, the

leaned trial Court accepted that the victim was less than 18 years of

age at the time of the occurrence.

10. While ascertaining the age of the victim as required under the

POCSO Act the learned trial Court has referred to the oral evidence

of the witnesses particularly that of the victim as well as other

documentary evidences. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial

Court has categorically stated that the prosecution has been

successful in eliciting from the mouth of the victim that she was born

on 01.01.2024. Such statement of the victim gets corroboration from

the documentary evidence. The aforesaid conclusion of the trial

Court has not been dislodged by the defence by adducing cogent and

reliable evidence. Thus this Court is of the considered view that the

learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in arriving at a

Page 6 of 22.

finding that the age of the victim was less than 18 years at the time of

alleged occurrence. Hence, the same does not call for any

interference by this Court.

11. With regard to the second question formulated by the learned

trial Court, as to whether the Appellant had taken away the victim

girl out of the lawfully guardianship of her mother and that too

without her consent, the learned trial Court proceeded to analyse the

evidence produced before it by both sides. In course of analysis of

the evidence on the aforesaid score, the learned trial Court has

categorically found that there are no eye witnesses so far the

kidnapping the victim is concerned. The only material witness in this

case is the victim who was allegedly kidnapped by the Appellant.

However, the victim who could have shed light on such incident, has

turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though the victim was

put to cross-examination by the learned Special P.P. however, the

prosecution has not been able to produce any substantial material.

Considering the absence of any eye witness to the occurrence, the

victim not supporting the prosecution case and having turned hostile,

and the complainant lodging the FIR, alleging that her daughter went

missing, against unknown accused persons, the learned trial court

was required to look at other materials collected in the course of

investigation by the I.O. The victim, who has been examined as a

witness, has categorically admitted that she was in a love relationship

with the Appellant, she fled away from her house along with the

Appellant, and stayed in the house of the elder father of the convict-

Appellant. Therefore, while answering the second question, the

learned trial Court has found that there is evidence in support of the

Page 7 of 22.

fact that the victim was missing from her parental house and later she

was rescued by the I.O. from Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar.

12. While answering the aforesaid question, the learned trial Court

has heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-3, P.W-8 and

P.W.4 to come to a conclusion that the victim was missing in the

night of occurrence and, subsequently, upon search by the police, the

victim was rescued by the I.O i.e. the P.W-8. The learned trial Court

has also heavily relied upon the statement of P.W-4 i.e. Dr. Rashmi

Rekha Jena who had examined the accused and before whom it is

alleged that the accused had made a statement that he and the victim

had eloped together and stayed in a house of his relative at

Bhubaneswar for 15 days. Astonishingly, this Court found that

although the learned trial Court, in Para-17 of the judgment, has

referred to the fact that the accused was examined by P.W-4, Dr.

Rashmi Rekha Jena, however in Para-19, the learned trial Court has

mentioned that it is the victim who was examined by Dr. Rashmi

Rekha Jena and the victim has admitted her signature in the medical

examination report given by the P.W-4.

13. Similarly, the learned trial Court has discussed the medical

examination of the victim at Pare-19 of the impugned judgment. On

perusal of the said portion of the judgment it appears that the learned

trial Court has observed that the victim was examined by the P.W-4

on police requisition and it was found that there is exists a hymeneal

tear at site of 4 ‘O’ clock, 6 ‘O’ clock and 8 O’ clock position

without bleeding and on the basis of such medical examination report

of the victim by the P.W-4 and relying upon the statement of the

victim before such Medical Officer, the learned trial Court has come

Page 8 of 22.

to a conclusion that the fact of commission of sexual intercourse by

the accused on the victim stands proved and the same cannot be

discarded, Accordingly the evidence of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Jena-P.W-

4, has been accepted.

14. While accepting the medical examination report given by P.W-

4 and her evidence, the learned trial Court seems to have discarded

the finding of the Medical Officer with regard to the fact that she has

not found any signs and/or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse on

the victim. Such anomaly with regard to the medical evidence as

observed by the Court below in the impugned judgment compelled

this Court to independently examine the medical examination report

submitted by P.W-4. The medical examination report has been

admitted to evidence and marked as Ext.6. On a critical analysis of

the medical examination report of the victim submitted by P.W-4,

this Court found that the Medical Officer has finally opined that the

victim has no bodily injury, though there is a tear present in hymen

but there is no bleeding and that she had no sexual intercourse in last

10 days and, moreover, her clothing had no tear. The oral testimony

of the P.W.4 reveals that she was examined by the Court and her

evidence was recorded on 21.09.2022. In her examination-in-chief

she has stated that the accused appeared to be 26 years old and

capable of doing sexual intercourse and that the accused stated

before the Medical Officer that he and the victim eloped together and

stayed together in the house of their relative at Bhubaneswar. With

regard to the examination of the victim she has stated in her

examination-in-chief that she did not notice any bodily injury on the

person of the victim, although there exists a tear on the hymen of the

victim. The P.W-4 has stated that the victim had stated before her

Page 9 of 22.

that she had sexual intercourse with the accused for last 10 days and

that she had opined so in her report. Contrary to the aforesaid

statement of the victim before the P.W-4, the P.W-4 in Para-4 of her

evidence has categorically stated that she did not find any signs or

symptoms of recent sexual intercourse. In the very same paragraph

she has also stated that the ruptured hymen is possible by any heavy

exercise such as cycling. She has also categorically stated in her

evidence that she did not conduct any ossification test to ascertain the

age of the victim.

15. On a careful analysis of the medical evidence as well as the

deposition of P.W-4 namely, Dr. Rashmi Rekha Jena, who had

examined both the accused as well as the victim, this Court is of the

view that although on examination of the victim’s body the doctor

found no signs or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse, however,

on the basis of the statement of the victim as well as the accused she

has deposed before the Court that both had sexual intercourse in last

ten days. Thus the finding with regard to penetrative sexual

intercourse on the victim by the accused is not on the basis of the

medical evidence and that the same is based on the alleged statement

of the victim and the accused before the P.W-4. Such statement of

the victim and the accused appears to be a confessional statement

before the P.W-4 and on the basis of such statement the P.W-4 has

deposed before the Court that the victim and the accused had

penetrative sexual intercourse during last 10 days from the date of

medical examination of the victim. It appears that the learned trial

Court has come to a conclusion that the accused has committed rape

on the victim on the basis of the oral evidence of P.W-4. Thus, this

Court is of the view that the finding with regard to the commission of

Page 10 of 22.

the offence of rape is not based on any medical evidence. Rather, the

same is based on the statement allegedly made by the victim as well

as the accused before the Medical Officer, P.W-4.

16. It would not be fair, proper and judicious to come to a

conclusion that the accused had committed rape on the victim on the

basis of the alleged confessional statement made by both of them

before the P.W-4, by ignoring the medical examination report.

Moreover, the learned trial Court, as it appears, has not examined the

validity of such statement made by the accused and the victim before

the Medical Officer. Instead, the learned trial Court has hastily come

to a conclusion on the basis of the deposition of the P.W-4 wherein

the P.W-4 has referred to the confessional statement of both the

accused and the victim. Keeping in view the fact that the victim had

turned hostile, the accused can still be found guilty and convicted of

an offence under Section 376 of the IPC provided their exist

substantial evidence and that such circumstantial evidence strongly

corroborates the version of the witnesses relied upon by the

prosecution. It is the settled position of law that while convicting a

person on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the learned trial

Court is required to be more cautious. The court below should ensure

that the link in such circumstantial evidence is not broken and that

the same gets corroboration from independent sources. A slightest

deviation or departure from the aforesaid settled position of law

would make the case of the prosecution completely untrustworthy

and unreliable and, on the basis of such unreliable evidence, no

person could be found guilty and, accordingly, he cannot be

convicted. In the instant case, after a thorough scrutiny of the

medical evidence as well as the deposition of P.W-4, this Court is of

Page 11 of 22.

the view that since the victim has turned hostile and denied the case

of the prosecution in toto, and there are no other independent

witnesses to the occurrence, the learned trial Court should have

adopted a more cautious approach while coming to a conclusion that

the Appellant had committed the offence of rape on the victim..

17. In the aforesaid context, it would also be relevant to scrutinize

the evidence adduced by the victim who was examined as P.W-1

from the prosecution side. The statement of the victim was recorded

in-camera on 13.01.2022. It appears that she was 19 years old at the

time recording of her deposition. The victim, P.W-1 in her evidence

has stated that she does not know the convict-Appellant Somanath

Janka and that she does not know why her mother has lodged the

FIR. She has also stated that she visited her friend’s house for 15

days and returned to her mother’s house. She has also stated that the

police rescued her from the house of her friend and sent her for

medical examination. She was declared hostile by the prosecution

and was subjected to cross-examination by the learned Special P.P.

She has categorically denied the suggestion given to her that she was

kidnapped by the Appellant. She has also admitted that her date of

birth is 01.01.2004. In reply to the suggestion given by the defence,

the victim has stated that no such occurrence had taken place with

her. Furthermore, on being cross-examined from the side of the

accused, the victim has stated that she was more than 18 years of age

at the time of occurrence.

18. Heard Mr. Ramesh Maharana, learned counsel appearing for

the Appellant and Mrs. Sasmita Nayak, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for the prosecution and Mr. Rasmi Ranjan Nayak, learned

Page 12 of 22.

counsel representing the Victim. Perused the TCR as well as the

appeal memo and the impugned judgment.

19. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, at

the outset, contended that the entire prosecution case is a false one

and that there is no cogent and trustworthy evidence to support the

case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the accused had

love relationship with the victim, following which they have married

in the meantime and they have been blessed with children. He further

contended that there exists no independent witness to support the

case of the prosecution. He further emphasized on the fact that the

victim who is the prime witness in a case of this nature has not

supported the case of the prosecution. While taking this Court

through the documentary as well as the oral evidence recorded/filed

during trial, learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the

prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges levied

against the present Appellant. He further contended that no case

under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC read with section 6 of the

POCSO Act is made out against the present Appellant.

20. Written note of argument has also been filed on behalf of the

Appellant. In course of argument as well as in the written note of

submission, the Appellant has taken a categorical stand that the P.W-

1 who is the star witness and victim in this case has not supported the

case of the prosecution. Despite such development, the learned trial

Court has taken a rigid approach and returned a finding that the

Appellant is guilty and accordingly he has been convicted and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment. It has been categorically stated

that the victim has already married the Appellant and, out of such

Page 13 of 22.

wedlock, they have two daughters. It has also been stated that both of

them were leading a happy conjugal right till the Appellant was sent

to prison. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the

Appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025

SCC Online SC 614. He also referred to the judgment of a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan

vs. State of Odisha and others in CRLMC No.3850 of 2024.

Learned counsel for the Appellant has also relied upon a judgment

dated 07.11.2025 of this Bench in Deepak Kumar Singh vs. State of

Odisha bearing CRLMC No.3347 of 2025.

21. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the

Appellant strenuously argued that the conviction and sentencing of

the Appellant is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned

judgment is liable to be set aside and the Appellant be set at liberty

forthwith.

22. Mrs. Sasmita Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of the prosecution supported the judgment of the

learned trial Court. In course of her argument, learned Additional

Standing Counsel contended before this Court that the impugned

judgment is unimpeachable in view of the fact that the learned trial

Court has taken note of all the materials placed before it, particularly

the medical evidence as well as the deposition of the Medical

Officer, P.W-4. She further contended that although the victim did

not support the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile during

trial, such development would not itself absolve the convict-

Page 14 of 22.

Appellant of the criminal liability, if the same can be established

with reference to the other materials on record.

23. While elaborating her arguments with regard to the

commission of the alleged offence by the Appellant, the learned

Additional Standing Counsel further submitted before this Court that

after the victim who was examined as P.W-1 turned hostile, she was

put to cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

Due procedure has been followed by the prosecution once the victim

turned hostile. She further contended that after such development, the

learned trial Court has taken note of the other relevant materials on

record and the statement of the material witnesses. On a careful

analysis of the evidence of the Medical Officer namely, Mr. Dr.

Rasmi Rekha Jena who has been examined as P.W-4, the learned

trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the Appellant is

guilty of the offences alleged and that the Appellant has been rightly

convicted and sentenced under the sections of the IPC as well as the

POCSO Act. She further strenuously argued that the evidence of

P.W-4 alone is sufficient to convict the accused and the learned trial

Court has rightly convicted the Appellant on the basis of the

evidence adduced by P.W.4. In view of her aforesaid submission,

learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted before this Court that

the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting

the Appellant and, as such, the sentenced imposed does not call for

any interference by this Court in the present Appeal.

24. On a careful analysis of the submission made by learned

counsels appearing for the Appellant, Prosecution and the Victim,

further on a close scrutiny of the learned trial Court record, as well as

Page 15 of 22.

the deposition of the witnesses and the medical evidence, particularly

the medical examination report of the victim, this Court is of the

view that while assessing the validity of the impugned judgment, this

Court is required to examine the findings arrived at by the learned

trial Court on the basis of the material available on record and the

deposition of the witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court.

Before independently assessing the evidence of the witnesses and the

documentary evidence, it is pertinent to mention that while the

appeal was being heard, the victim along with her two daughters

appeared before this Court, she was represented by her counsel Mr.

Rashmi Ranjan Nayak who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of

the victim. The victim appeared before this Court on 01.08.2025 and

the victim also filed an affidavit dated 01.08.2025 sworn before the

Oath Commissioner of this Court. The statement of the victim before

this Court is also reflected in the affidavit filed before this Court on

01.08.2025. In her affidavit, a copy of which was served on learned

counsel for the Prosecution and which was not specifically objected

to by the prosecution, it is revealed that the Appellant is the husband

of the victim and is languishing in custody since 18.01.2025. She has

further categorically stated that the Appellant is in no way connected

with the present case and that he has married the victim on

03.06.2025 and, out of such wedlock, a female child has born. She

has further stated that now she is living in the house of the Appellant

and, accordingly, she has prayed for the release of her husband on

bail. The victim in her statement before this Court has also admitted

the fact that the Appellant has already married to the victim and they

are staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy

conjugal life.

Page 16 of 22.

25. Reverting back to the evidence recorded in the present case, on

a careful analysis of the trial Court record which was called for

earlier, and on a careful analysis of the deposition of various

witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution as well as other

relevant materials including the medical examination report of the

victim, this Court is of the view that as per the charges levied against

the Appellant, the prosecution was required to establish, by adducing

trustworthy and reliable evidence with regard to the age of the

victim, as to whether the victim was kidnapped by the Appellant and

whether the accused committed the offence of rape on the victim.

26. As has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, while

scrutinizing the evidence, this Court has already opined that the

learned trial Court has rightly accepted the age of the victim to be

less than 18 years of age. Therefore, there is no doubt that the victim

was minor at the time of occurrence of the offence. With regard to

the kidnapping of the victim by the Appellant which was the

principal allegation in the FIR by the mother of the victim, this Court

would like to observe that the prosecution has failed to examine any

eye witness to such occurrence of kidnapping of the victim by the

Appellant. The star witness, i.e. the victim herself, has not supported

in the case of the prosecution. There is also no other independent

material to establish the fact that the victim was in fact kidnapped by

the Appellant. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the

considered view that the finding of the learned trial Court with regard

to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363/366 of

IPC is not based on any evidence on record. Accordingly, this Court

holds that since such charges have not been established by the

Page 17 of 22.

prosecution, the learned trial Court has committed an error by

convicting the Appellant under Section 363 and 366 of IPC.

27. So far the allegations under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is

concerned, this Court has already analysed the evidence in the

preceding paragraphs. There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence

of such offence. Again, the star witness, i.e. the victim, has not

supported the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances the

victim is the best witness to depose with regard to the ordeal she has

undergo at the behest of the Appellant. However, the victim has

turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution.

As such, this Court was required to examine the circumstantial

evidence basing upon which the learned trial Court has arrived at a

finding that an offence under Section 373(2)(n) of IPC and under

Section 6 of POCSO Act has in fact been committed.

28. On a careful analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution

and on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, with regard to the

analysis of such evidence, this Court found that the learned trial

Court, relying upon the evidence of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Jena (Medical

Officer), P.W-4, has come to a conclusion that the victim was

subjected to rape by the Appellant. While arriving such a finding, the

learned trial Court has heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W-4 and

the medical examination report. In her evidence the P.W-4 has stated

that both the victim and the accused stated before her that they had

sexual intercourse during last ten days. Such statement before the

P.W-4 cannot be accepted as a judicial confession by the accused.

The learned trial Court should have analysed such deposition of the

P.W-4 with more care and caution. This Court finds that such

Page 18 of 22.

acceptance of the evidence of P.W-4, particularly the statement of

the victim and accused before P.W.4 could not at all be safe in the

absence of any corroborative material to support such statement

allegedly made before the P.W.4. So far the medical examination

report is concerned, this Court found that although the Medical

Officer, P.W-4 has categorically stated that there exists no signs

and/or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse, however, she has also

opined that there is a rupture in the hymen of the victim. In her cross-

examination it has also been elicited by the defence that such rupture

may happen due to heavy exercise, like bicycling. Furthermore,

although there is rupture of hymen however, there was no bleeding.

In the event any sexual intercourse had in fact taken place during last

10 days, there should have been some bleeding. This is relevant

because there are no eye witnesses and the victim has turned hostile.

While accepting such evidence, the learned trial Court should have

been more cautious and should have done more circumspection with

regard to the allegation of rape.

29. On a critical scrutiny of the impugned judgment, this Court

found that the learned trial Court has arrived at the finding of

commission of rape by the Appellant on the victim on the basis of the

deposition of P.W-4. Alhough the medical examination report of the

victim does not support the case of the prosecution, as it says that

there exist no recent signs or symptoms of sexual intercourse, on a

careful analysis of the impugned judgment as well as the evidence of

the P.W-4, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be

safe to convict the Appellant for commission of an offence under

Section 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act on

the basis of the statement of P.W-4 when the medical examination

Page 19 of 22.

report of the victim does not support such allegation. Moreover,

considering the gravity and the harshness of the punishment

prescribed under such sections of the IPC and POCSO Act, the

learned trial Court was required to exercise more caution in the

matter and should have come up with some trustworthy and reliable

material to support its finding in the aforesaid regard. In such view of

the matter, this court is of the considered view that the finding of the

trial Court with regard to commission of rape by the Appellant on the

victim is not supported by any trustworthy and reliable evidence.

Hence, such finding is unsustainable in law.

30. With regard to the fact that the Appellant has already married

the victim and they have been blessed with a female child and that

they are staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy

conjugal life, this Court is of the view that the same gets support

from the statement of the victim before this Court as well as the

affidavit filed on behalf of the victim sworn before the Oath

Commissioner of this Court, which, in the course of hearing of the

appeal memo, was categorically admitted by the victim. In the

aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel’s case

(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the

case of an Appellant facing identical charges, has taken note of the

marriage certificate between the Appellant and the victim and that

the Appellant and the victim in that case were blessed with two

children. Upon a verification of such marriage certificate and further

taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the victim wherein the

victim has specifically admittedly that she is happily married to the

Appellant and they residing together, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

Page 20 of 22.

come to a conclusion that no purpose will be served by continuing

the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the Appellant,

the victim and their children. Therefore, the order of the High Court

refusing to exercise inherent power to quash the FIR was set aside

and, accordingly, the FIR was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

31. Similarly, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Fayazuddin

Khan @ Badal Khan’s case (supra) while considering an application

for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of

the entire criminal proceeding in a case of identical nature. Referring

to the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly

referring to the judgment in Rosalin Rout and another vs. State of

Odisha and another reported in 2024 SCC Online Odisha 1339 was

pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Similarly in the case

of Deepak Kumar Singh vs. State of Odisha decided in CRLMC

No.3347 of 2025 vide judgment dated 07.11.2025.

32. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 SCC Online

SC 1415, the Hon’ble Court was adjudication the scope of Section

482 Cr.P.C. in quashing a complaint involving allegation of rape

under Section 376 IPC. The matter was amicably resolved and both

the accused and victim decided to stay together and the victim

wished not to continue with the proceeding. Taking note of such

amicable settlement and subsequent development and while quashing

the criminal proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has

observed as follows:

Page 21 of 22.

“6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under

Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous

nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving

such offences on the ground of settlement between the

parties is discouraged and should not be permitted

lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section

482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained

by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference

to the facts of each case.

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual

situation where the FIR invoking serious charges,

including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately

following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This

sequence of events lends a certain context to the

allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have

been a reactionary step. More importantly, the

complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally

expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has

submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal

life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would

only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither

tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained,

including through an affidavit on record, that she does not

support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The

parties have also amicably resolved their differences and

arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances,

the continuation of the trial would not serve any

meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all

concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the

Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.”

(Emphasis supplied)

33. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position as well

as on a close scrutiny of both the oral and documentary evidence on

record and upon a careful analysis of the impugned judgment, this

Court is of the view that the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2025

passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge,

(FTSC), Jajpur at Annexure-1, thereby convicting and sentencing the

Page 22 of 22.

Appellant for commission of an offence under Sections 363, 366 and

376(2)(n) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is

unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the impugned judgment is

hereby set aside. This Court further directs that in the event the

Appellant is in judicial custody and his custodial detention is not

required in any other case, he shall be set at liberty forthwith. Since

this Court holds that no offence against the Appellant is made out

and that the victim has turned hostile, the amount of victim

Compensation, if any paid to the victim shall be refunded by the

victim to the District Legal Services Authority. If the victim fails to

do so then it is open to the competent authority to take steps for

recovery of such compensation amount from the victim.

34. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed however, there shall be

no order as such.

(A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

The, 30

th

June, 2026/S. K. Sethi, P.A.