The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.93 of 1998 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Ajit Sahu ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellant Amicus Curiae : Mr. Janmejay Katikia, For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.04.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 133/3 of 1997-98, whereby the present appellant, Ajit Sahu, was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”), but convicted under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of a woman and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.10.1996 at about 7:00 PM, the victim, Ms. Debaki Sahu, then allegedly aged about 14 years, had gone outside her house to relieve herself. At that moment, the accused, who belonged to the same village, is said to have forcibly covered her mouth with her saree, lifted her physically to a nearby Mohua tree, disrobed her, threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm, and forcibly raped her. The incident was allegedly witnessed towards its end by the victim’s mother and cousin, who raised an alarm, causing the accused to flee the spot. The matter was reported the next day to the Titilagarh Police Station, and investigation ensued. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC was submitted, and trial commenced. 3. At trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW1 was the victim herself, PW2 was her mother, PWs 3, 4 and 5 were other villagers and seizure/post-occurrence witnesses, and PW6 was the Investigating Officer. However, PW1, the informant-victim, was Page 2 of 9 declared hostile. She did not fully support the prosecution's version of rape in her chief examination, although during cross-examination, she admitted to having made such statements to the police in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and in her FIR. 4. It is also apparent on record that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. The medical examination report of the victim, conducted on 24.10.1996, did not find any signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries suggestive of force. Similarly, the medical report of the accused dated 25.10.1996 revealed no signs of recent sexual activity. Furthermore, there was a notable inconsistency in the age of the victim as recorded in the FIR and the medical report, which casts a serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s case. These significant infirmities in the medical and documentary evidence weaken the substratum of the prosecution’s version and should have been considered with due seriousness by the learned trial Court while evaluating the credibility of the evidence. The learned trial Court, after weighing the evidence, held that the allegation of rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but convicted the appellant under Section 354 Page 3 of 9 IPC, concluding that there was clear use of criminal force intending to outrage the modesty of the victim(PW1). 5. The trial Court, after threadbare analysis, has arrived at the following finding- “However, in any case taking into consideration the oral evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of this case although the story of commission of rape is not proved through convincing evidence but there is direct any cogent evidence on record from which there can be no escape except from the conclusion that on the date of occurrence at the relevant time the accused used criminal force on the victim at the spot in question with the intention to outrage her modesty. Therefore, I must say that although the accused is not liable U/S. 376 of the I.P.C. but he is liable U/S.354 of the I.P.C.
Decision
7) In the result, I therefore hold that the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/S. 376 I.P.C. and accordingly is acquitted of the said offence, But he is found guilty U/s.354 of I.P.C. and as such he is convicted thereunder. 8) Heard the convict-accused on the question of sentence to be awarded to him. Admittedly this type of offence has became rampant in the area. So in the back-ground of this case, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence I am sentencing the convict-accused to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence U/S 354 D.P.C. which shall meet the ends of justice.” Page 4 of 9 6. The present appeal has been pending since 1998. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the appellant. On 03.07.2025, Mr. J. Katikia, learned counsel, who was present in the Court, was requested by this Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has agreed to the same and assisted the Court. The matter was heard on 22.07.2025 and judgment was reserved. 7. Mr. Katikia appeared for the appellant as Amicus Curiae and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State. 8. I have carefully gone through the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and analysed the impugned judgment. 9. Learned trial Court has heavily relied upon the sole testimony of P.W.1, the victim and has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, while recording an acquittal of the charge under Section 376 of the IPC. 10. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered at the instance of the victim, P.W.1 on 24.10.1996 before Titilagarh P.S. alleging the commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC. In the F.I.R., she had alleged that on 24.10.1996 in the night, when she went outside to Page 5 of 9 attend the call of nature, the accused, taking advantage of the darkness forcefully pulled her up by putting the saree on her mouth and lifted her to near a Mohua tree. Thereafter, he forcefully made her nude. When she protested, the accused threatened to kill her. The accused removed his lungi and forcefully let her down and raped her. Despite repeated protests, he not only threatened but also abused her. In this process, he has repeatedly raped her. At that point of time, her father reached at the spot and the accused fled away. 11. During trial, the victim was examined as P.W.1. She, in her testimony, has stated as follows: “The occurrence took place one year four months back on one Wednesday at night at about 7 P.M. On the date of occurrence at the relevant time I went towards the bari of my house for urinal and by that time the accused Ajit Sahu came and put my wearing saree on my mouth and lifted me under a Mohua tree about 100 cubits from my house. Thereafter, the accused left me and fled away towards his house and I also returned to my house.” The prosecutor declared her hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and subjected her to cross-examination. However, she was consistent in her statement, rather in contrast to that when the defence cross-examined the said witness, she further stated thus: Page 6 of 9 “Before going to the police station I did not narrate about the incident before anybody nor anybody asked me about the incidence. I cannot say the contents of the document on which I gave my thumb impression. Elder brother of my father namely Raja Sahu gave a proposal of my marriage with accused Ajit Sahu and since they refused the proposal, Raja Sahu foisted this case against the accused. The village people have dragged me to the Court in connection with this case. The accused has not committed any rape on me. I was not examined by the police in connection with this case.” The evidence of the victim, P.W.1 as narrated would reveal that she has not supported her version as reflected in the F.I.R. Ext.2/2. The father of the victim was examined as P.W.2, he in his testimony has stated thus: “The victim Debaki Sahu is my daughter aged about 14 years. The occurrence took place more than one year back in the month of Dasahara at about 7 P.M. on the date of occurrence at the relevant time I was sleeping in my house and when I got up and searched for my daughter near a Mohua tree I saw my daughter and the accused there. By that time the accused fled away from the spot and my daughter came with me to my house. On the next day I along with my daughter came to Titilagarh P.S. and my daughter gave her thumb impression on a paper.” In the cross-examination, the said witness has deposed as follows: “The incident took place at evening hour. During that time villagers use to go outside to attend the call of nature. When I saw, my daughter and the accused they were not together. When my daughter just left my house I also followed her and Page 7 of 9 she came with me. The other villagers instigated for filing of this case.” 12. Even the evidence of the father of the victim i.e. P.W.2 does not support the narrative of the prosecution. The said witness was not even declared hostile. He has categorically stated that on the instigation of the villagers, the case was filed and he has not seen any wrong doing by the accused. The villagers like P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 simplicitor deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Therefore, all the independent witnesses have riggled out of their earlier version. Now, the only evidence left to be relied upon by the prosecution is P.W.6, the Investigating Officer. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused clearly stated that their family had a quarrel with Raj Sahu, the elder father of the victim. Therefore, a false case has been foisted. The accused examined himself on his defence as D.W.1. He has deposed that there was a past enmity between Raj Sahu with his family. Therefore, false cases have been foisted. Page 8 of 9 13. A conjoint reading of the entire evidence of the prosecution and the defence would lead to only the conclusion that the prosecution's version does not have enough evidence to sustain. Rather, the chain of events as narrated by the prosecution is not completed. Therefore, this Court has no option but to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Since the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 14. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges and the bail bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged. 15. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 31st July, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 01-Aug-2025 10:55:49 Page 9 of 9