In a criminal appeal filed before the Orissa High Court under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to challenge a judgment dated 11-02-2025 by the Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTSC), Jaipur, whereby the appellant was found guilty of offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, 3 years with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, as well as rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra set aside the impugned judgment.
The victim, aged about 16 years, went missing on 30.11.2020, leading the informant mother to lodge an FIR on 11.12.2020 against an unknown accused person. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer examined witnesses, seized the age proof certificate of the victim, and sent both the victim and the accused for medical examination. The accused appellant was subsequently arrested and forwarded to the Court.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses, including the victim, her mother, and the doctor. The victim turned hostile, stating she visited her friend’s house for 15 days and denied being kidnapped by the appellant. However, the trial court accepted the age of the victim to be less than 18 years at the time of the occurrence. Placing reliance upon the deposition of the doctor, who mentioned a confessional statement allegedly made by the accused and victim as well as a hymeneal tear on the victim, the trial court found that the fact of commission of sexual intercourse stood proved. Despite the medical examination report stating no signs or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse existed, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years.
The Court perused the medical officer’s opinion which noted that the victim had no bodily injury, and even though there was a tear in the hymen, there was no bleeding and that she had no sexual intercourse in the last 10 days. It was also noted that the victim had confessed before the doctor that she had sexual intercourse with the accused. The Court found that the trial court had concluded that the accused had committed rape based on the oral evidence of the doctor, and not on any medical evidence.
The Court stated that while convicting a person based on circumstantial evidence, the trial court has to be more cautious and must ensure that the link in such circumstantial evidence is not broken, being corroborated from independent sources. It was said that in the present case since the victim had turned hostile denying the prosecution case in totality, and there were no other independent witnesses, the court should have been more cautious while concluding the same. The appellant argued that he and the victim had a love relationship, subsequently married on 03.06.2025, and were blessed with children. The victim appeared before the High Court, filed an affidavit confirming her marriage with the accused, and prayed for her husband’s release stating that he had been languishing in jail since 18-01-2025.
The Court found no doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the occurrence of the offence and observed that the prosecution had failed to examine any eye-witness for the kidnapping. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court’s finding regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 363/366 of IPC was not based on any evidence and that an error had been committed by convicting the appellant. Regarding allegations under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, the Court stated that if any sexual intercourse had taken place in the last 10 days, there should have been some bleeding and held that the finding that the accused had committed rape was unsustainable in law.
Referring to precedents where criminal proceedings were quashed due to amicable settlements and marriage, the Court found the trial court’s judgment unsustainable in law, and hence, the Court set aside the same, allowed the appeal, and directed the appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Lastly, the Court ordered the amount of victim compensation paid to the victim to be refunded to the District Legal Services Authority and left it open for the competent authority to take steps against the victim if she fails to refund the same.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court: Port Trust Cannot Reopen Concluded E-Auction by Terming It an ‘Extension’
