The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 201 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Bhaktabandhu Mohanta ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Anshuman Roy, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.04.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T-1), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 17/5 of 2005 (arising out of Harichandanpur P.S. Case No.36/04 corresponding to G.R. Case No.572/2004), whereby the present appellant was held guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹1,000 in default to undergo further R.I. for six months. 2.
Legal Reasoning
not shaken her version in any material particular. It is trite law that the testimony of the victim of a sexual offence, if found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy, can form the sole basis of conviction, and in the present case, her evidence inspires confidence. Page 6 of 9 10. The medical evidence, though not suggestive of any grievous injury, does not negate the version of the victim. Minor abrasions and absence of grievous hurt cannot demolish the prosecution case when the act complained of is under Section 354 IPC, which primarily deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The other witnesses, though not eyewitnesses to the actual act, lend assurance to the version of the victim by way of immediate disclosure and surrounding circumstances. 11. The defence plea of false implication has not been substantiated by any credible material. No plausible motive could be brought on record as to why the victim or her family would falsely implicate the accused at the cost of her dignity and honour. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly discarded such defence and convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC. 12. Coming to the question of sentence, it is relevant to note that the offence in question occurred prior to 3rd February, 2013, i.e., prior to the amendment brought to Section 354 IPC by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. At the time of commission of the offence, the Page 7 of 9 punishment prescribed under Section 354 IPC was imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. After the amendment, the punishment has been enhanced to imprisonment for a term not less than one year but which may extend to five years, along with fine. Since the offence in this case took place prior to the amendment, in view of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India, the pre-amendment provision would apply to the present appellant. 13. It has been brought on record that the appellant has already undergone about one month of substantive sentence. He is presently aged about 49 years, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has any criminal antecedents or has been involved in similar offences thereafter. Considering the age of the appellant, the limited period of incarceration already suffered, and keeping in view that the conviction under Section 354 IPC is otherwise well-founded and calls for no interference, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence is restricted to the period already undergone by the appellant while enhancing the quantum of fine. Page 8 of 9 14. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC as recorded by the learned trial Court, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only, in default to undergo a period of one month of R.I. The fine amount to be disbursed to the victim as per the provisions under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Arguments
Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anshuman Roy, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.07.2004 at about 10 A.M., the victim, a married woman, had gone to the neighbouring Sahi of her village to call a mason and after calling him while she was returning back to her house, it was alleged that the appellant, who is a co-villager, intercepted her on the way and made unwelcome physical advances amounting to outraging her modesty. The victim raised alarm and the appellant allegedly assaulted her, throttled her neck and torn her saree, blouse and saya. Page 2 of 9 4. On the basis of the report lodged by the victim before Harichandanpur Police Station, P.S. Case No.36/04 was registered under Sections 341/376/323/506 IPC. Investigation was taken up, the appellant was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded, the medical examination of the victim was conducted, and finally, charge-sheet was laid under Sections 341/376/323/506 IPC. 5. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, including the victim (P.W.1), the informant, the medical officer, and the investigating officer. Several documents were exhibited, including the FIR, medical report, and seizure list. The defence of the accused was one of complete denial and false implication due to village enmity. No witness was examined on his behalf. 6. After assessing the evidence, the learned trial Court came to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, as there were material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in respect of the allegation of rape. The benefit of doubt was therefore extended to the accused in respect of the charge under Section 376 IPC. Page 3 of 9 7. However, the Court found that the evidence of the victim, supported by medical findings and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, was sufficient to establish that the accused had wrongfully restrained her, used criminal force upon her with the intent to outrage her modesty, and also threatened her. Accordingly, the learned trial Court convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “In the case at hand, the medical evidence does not show any sign of recent sexual intercourse. The doctor has also not found any other injury on the person of the victim. In a rougn uneven stoney surface if an average body built male applies force on a lady who is forcibly laid down on the ground and the lady struggles for ten minutes against the wish of the accused to prevent a sexual penetration, it is just unimaginable to find no mark of injury on the backside of the lady, even their Lordships in a recent case of the Hon’ble Court held that a lady protesting against the forcible sexual intercourse must leave some mark of struggle or violence on the person of the accused. P.W.3 has demolished the allegation of tearing of saree, saya and blouse as held by the prosecution in respect of M.O.I, II, and III, as he found her in proper dress at the relevant time. This does not support the prosecution’s story. I agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Defence Page 4 of 9 counsel; that if a lady can fight out after the commission of rape she can also fight out before the commission of rape and ultimately if she is overpowered physically, then there must be some injury or marks of injury on the either of the private parts of the victim or injury on the back of the victim which is absent. It is very strange that after the alleged sexual intercourse both P.W.1 and the accused were still present at the spot until P.Ws.2 and 3 reached the spot. Therefore, the version of prosecutrix with regard to rape is unacceptable in absence of a little corroboration which was very much essential in the present case to accept her testimony, more so, when the lady is a married lady. Now it is to be seen what is the nature of offence that the prosecution has successfully made out against the accused. Considering the inimical relationship between them whether it is true or false that the victim obtained some loan from or through the accused, it does not give a licence to the accused to man handled a lady and assault her in any manner under any circumstances. Irrespective of a little discrepancy in their respective explanations P.Ws.2 and 3 have unanimously said that the accused had applied criminal force to the victim and the victim also complained of assault by the accused and the same finds corroboration from the injury report under Ext.2/1. The used force will become criminal when it is done against the consent of any person with the intention of committing an offence or to cause injury, fear or annoyance to a person. The conduct of the accused is clearly directed to outrage the modesty of the victim or in other words the conduct of the accused amounts to an indecent assault which is outragious to morality and to the modesty of a woman. P.Ws.2 and 3 have no enmity with the accused, rather P.W.3 has supported the defence plea in some respect. It is, therefore, concluded that the accused has committed an offence U/S/ 354 of I.P.C. and the prosecution has clearly Page 5 of 9 established the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. I, therefore, found the accused guilty of the offence U/S 354 I.P.C. and convict him thereunder.” 8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State, and perused the entire lower court records, including the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court. 9. The occurrence, as established through the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.1), finds substantial corroboration from the surrounding circumstances and the testimony of other witnesses. The prosecutrix has consistently narrated the manner in which the accused/appellant wrongfully restrained her and used criminal force intending to outrage her modesty. The cross-examination of P.W.1 has
Decision
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of as partly allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th September, 2025/Ashok (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:56:40 Page 9 of 9