The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.196 of 2000 Gobardhan Podh …. Appellant Mr. Abhash Mohanty, Amicus Curiae State of Orissa …. Respondent -versus- Mr. R.B. Dash, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 18.09.2025 1. The present Criminal Appeal is arising out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.06.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.335/84 of 1999, whereby the learned trial Court has found the appellant-accused guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one Page 1 of 7 year. 2. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the victim, P.W.1, who is a 3 year old girl and thr daughter of the informant Smt. Kishori Kanta, P.W.2. P.W.1 had been to the house of Sradharam Podh, the father of the accused on 25.03.1999 at about 8.30 A.M. to play. It is alleged that on the same day, at about 9 A.M., P.W.1 returned back to the house and asked P.W.2 to bathe her but when P.W.2 inquired as to why she would bathe her, P.W.1 reported that the accused had asked her to take bathe and further disclosed that the accused had called her (P.W.1) inside his house and after removing her pant pushed his penis into her vagina for which she cried. P.W.1 further disclosed before her mother that when she cried, the accused told her to suckle the breasts of her mother so that the pain would subside. On hearing this, when P.W.2 removed the chadi of P.W.1, found the same to have been stained with the semen and there was swelling of the vagina. On hearing this, it is Page 2 of 7 alleged that P.W.2 informed Hara Budhi (P.W.3) and Sushila, who were her neighbours and had shown them the private part of P.W.1. It is alleged that P.W.2 had reported the matter to the Secretary of Mahila Sangha, Nrupamani Singh P.W.7, Biranchi Kuanar, Kusabanta Karali, Iswar Bhoi and other villagers to decide the matter and they advised her to decide the matter in the village. But when the matter could not be decided in the village, the father of the accused told that his son was not in the house. When the father and mother of the accused begged apology for the wrong doing of their son, the accused and requested her not to lodge the report in the Police Station or in the Court, therefore, the matter could not be reported and it was ultimately reported in 02.04.1999 at Brajarajnagar Police Station. Hence, the F.I.R. 3. Heard Mr. Abhash Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The appellant was charged for the alleged Page 3 of 7 commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. But he took stance of complete denial and claimed trial. Accordingly, he was subjected to trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. 6. To disprove the case of the prosecution, the accused-appellant chose not to lead the evidence. 7. P.W.1 was the informant. P.W.2 was her mother. P.W.12 was the Associate Professor-cum-Head of the Department of F.M.T., V.S.S. Medical College, Burla. P.W.8 was the doctor attached to the District Headquarters Hospital, Jharsuguda, who had examined the accused. P.Ws.9 and 11 were the two Investigating Officers. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were the other independent witnesses to the prosecution. P.W.10 was the Police Constable, who had escorted the accused to the District Headquarters Hospital, Jharsuguda for medical examination and the Page 4 of 7 witnesses to the seizure of glass vial containing the semen of the accused. 8. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, inter alia arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. On that count, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further period of R.I. for one year. 9. At the outset, Mr. Abhash Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that he would not argue the appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned. He would confine his argument limited to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that the appellant has already served out the entire period of sentence. 10. When the matter was taken up on 09.09.2025, the following order was passed: Page 5 of 7 “1. Mr. Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. and on that count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. According to him, it appears from the record that the appellant was never released on bail. Therefore, he submits that the appellant might have undergone the entire sentence period. In that view of the matter, he prays that a report may be called for from the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for the State is directed to instruction regarding the period already obtain undergone by the appellant, by the next date of hearing. 3. List this matter on 18.09.2025.” 11. Pursuance to the said order, the Superintendent, District Jail, Jharsuguda vide report dated 08.09.2025 has stated as under: “As per your telephonic conversation, I am to inform that, the Convict Gobardhan Podh, S/o- Sradharam Podh convicted in ST Case No.335/84 of 1999 by the Hon’ble Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda is already released from the Jail after completion of sentence and after availing 714 days remission under Remission Rule.” 12. On perusal of the report, it reveals that the appellant in this case has not only undergone the substantive period of sentence of ten years, but also in lieu of default of the payment of fine, one year sentence has already been served out by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has been released from the Page 6 of 7 custody on 07.07.2008. It is also revealed from the report that he has earned remission of 714 days. 13. Regard being had to the aforementioned, the submissions made by Mr. Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae, deserves attention. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.335/84 of 1999 and for the reason that the appellant has already served out the entire period of sentence, nothing survives in this Criminal Appeal. 14. This Court records appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Abhash Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) as a token of appreciation by the State. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 22-Sep-2025 19:48:01 Subhasis Page 7 of 7