Ramesh Chandra Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Judgment

09.01.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Pati, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. // 2 //

3. The present Appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2019, so passed by the learned Addl. District Juge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Angul in Special (POCSO) Case No.115 of 2016. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was held guilty for the offence U/s.376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and U/s.6 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default further R.I. for 1 (one) year for the offence U/s.376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and U/s.6 of the POCSO Act.

4. It is the case of the appellant that basing on the

FIR lodged by the informant-P.W.2 on 20.11.2016, Pallahara P.S. Case No.64 of 2016 was registered for the offence U/s.376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (P.A) Amendment Act,

2015. After being charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, charge was also framed against the appellant for the offence under Section-376(2)(i) of // 3 // the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PA) Amendment Act, 2015 and appellant faced the trial in Special POCSO Case No.115 of 2016.

4.1. It is contended that on being so implicated, petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody on

20.11.2016 itself and since 20.11.2016 petitioner is continuing in custody as on date. The prosecution story as has been stated in the FIR reads as follows:- “That on 20.11.2016 at about 9.15 P.M the informant Ajaya Bahera, aged about 35 years, son of Dileswar Behera of village-Batisuan, P.S- Pallahara, District- Angul presented a written report before the I.I.C, Pallahara P.S alleging to the effect that on 20.11.2016 at about 5.00 P.M in the evening while his daughter had gone near the guava tree of Ramesh Pradhan, he and his wife were carrying the paddy bundles on the back side bari of one Pradhan of his village. At that time his daughter came near his wife and told that Ramesh Pradhan raped her by giving two guavas. Thereafter his wife immediately told the matter to him. As four bundles of paddy were left, he carried the same and went to his nephew Babu and telephoned to his brother in-law from the phone of Babu. After receiving phone call his brother in-law Guru Behera, nephew Bultu Behera and Prasanta Behera arrived and all of them went to the P.S and reported the matter.”.

4.2. It is contended that in order to prove the allegation of rape so made against the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, // 4 // which includes the victim as P.W. 1, father of the victim/informant as P.W. 2 and mother of the victim as P.W. 3. P.W. 4 and 5 are the independent witnesses. Similarly, P.W. 11 is the concerned Doctor who examined the victim and P.W. 10 and 13 are the I.Os. of the case and other witnesses are official witnesses.

4.3. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that even though allegation of rape was made and with the further allegation that the victim was a minor, her date of birth being 14.04.2010, but P.W. 11, who examined the victim did not find any bodily injury, suggesting forcible sexual intercourse on the victim. Statement of the P.W. 11 reads as follows:- “1. On 21.11.2016, I was working as Medical Officer at SDH Pallahara. On that day, on police requisition, I examined one Suni Behera, aged around 6 years, D/o.Ajaya Behera, vill-Batisuan, P.S-Pallahara, Dist-Angul, the victim in Pallahara p.s case No.64 dated 20.11.2016 and after examination I submitted by report as follows:- (i) forcible sexual intercourse. There was no bodily injury suggesting of // 5 // (ii) alleged sexual offence. Her clothings etc. had no physical clue of (iii) The genitals were examined as per the enclosed proforma and there was no sign or symptom of recent sexual intercourse. (iv) labelled and handed over to the police personnel. vaginal swab/smear collected, sealed and (v) (vi) (vii) Blood group was AB+ve. The age of the victim was 6 years pubic hair was not developed. (viii) examination, however, it cannot be excluded.” There was no recent signs and symptoms the aforesaid intercourse sexual

4.4. It is accordingly contended that since allegation of rape was not proved on the face of the evidence laid by the doctor-P.W. 11, there was no occasion to convict the appellant for the offences under Section- 376(2)(i) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4.5. It is also contended that in the FIR, allegation was made that on 20.11.2016 at about 5 P.M. in the evening while the victim had gone near the Guava Tree of the accused-appellant, the appellant committed rape on the victim by giving 2 (two) guavas. The parents of the victim on being apprised about the incident by the victim on the very same date, P.W.2/Father of the victim lodged the FIR on // 6 //

20.11.2016 at about 9.15 p.m.. P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated as follows:- “At about one year back one day at about 5 P.M., I had been with my parents to our paddy field. While my father and mother were doing work in the field, myself, Reeli, Tiki, Balu were playing in the bari of Ramesh Pradhan and were eating guava. At that time, Ramesh Pradhan arrived there Reeli, Tiki and Balu went away. Ramesh gave me two guavas and after giving me guavas, he called me and took me to the nearby mango field. There he opened my chadi and did ugly work. I cried loudly. He left me. Coming to house, I told this fact to my mother. My mother told my father and to my uncle over phone. My father also informed to Bultu Nana thereafter my father, mother and myself went to police station. My father told the incident to police. Police also asked me. He examined me and we returned to house.”

4.6. It is however contended that P.W. 2, the informant and father of the victim in his examination-in-chief in Para-1 gave a different story to the alleged occurrence and the evidence so laid by P.W. 2 is also contrary to the FIR allegation. Evidence of P.W. 2 in his examination-in-chief in Para-1 reads as follows:- “1. I am the informant in this case. I know accused Ramesh Behera. Victim in this case is my minor daughter. The alleged incident was happened at about 7 months back. On the occurrence day at about 4.00 P.M while I was making bundle to the paddy plants in the land of accused Ramesh, at that time my daughter along with my wife arrived there. My daughter told that she had gone to the back side of the Bari of Ramesh Pradhan to bring guava. Accused Ramesh arrived there and gave two guavas to her and thereafter took her to the nearby mango orchard. There he committed sexual assault on her. I informed this incident to my nephew // 7 // and brother in-law and told them to come immediately. After a while they arrived in my house. In a vehicle we all went to Pallahara police station taking the victim. There I reported the matter to police”

4.7. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 stated as follows:- it was “4. I have lodged F.I.R against one Ramesh Pradhan. I cannot remember the date and month of the occurrence, but in the year 2016. The occurrence took at about 5.00 PM in the evening. I was alone inside the paddy field. I cannot say the telephone numbers of Babu Behera and my brother in- law Guru Behera. I cannot say the time of arrival at the P.S. I have not tried to meet the accused prior to proceed to the P.S.

5. It is a fact that I am a bhag tenant of the accused. But it is not a fact that due to dispute in sharing the paddy with the accused, I have lodged a false F.I.R by the help of my minor daughter and that I am deposing falsehood against the accused.”

4.8. P.W. 3 who happens to be the mother of the victim in her examination-in-chief gave a different story than that was reflected in the FIR and statement of the victim as well as P.W. 2. Statement of P.W. 3 in her examination-in-chief in Para-1 reads as follows:- “1.Informant in this case is my husband. I know accused Ramesh Ch. Pradhan. The victim Suni is my daughter. The alleged incident was happened at about 9 months back in the month of last Margasira. On that day myself, and my husband had gone to the paddy field of Ramesh Chandra Pradhan on wage to bring cut paddy from his land to his thrashing floor. My husband was tying the bundles and I was bringing the same. My six years old daughter suni alone was in the house. At about 5.00 P.M. Suni came to the paddy field // 8 // of accused crying while I asked the reason she told that she was coming to me, on the way accused told her to give guava and stating so he took her to the nearby mango grove and did ugly act with her. He showed me her private part and I found there was some liquid like substance on her private part and chadi. I told this fact to her father. After completion of work my husband went to ask accused Ramesh Pradhan, but he had concealed himself and was not available. I informed to my father and brother over phone. My brother and nephews came to my house, thereafter we went to Pallahara Police station and my husband lodged a written report. The police sent the victim for her medical examination and she was medically examined at Pallahara medical and her chadi and banian were seized by the police.”

4.9. P.W. 4 who happens to be the father of the informant in his deposition, gave a different story with regard to the date of making the FIR though the FIR was lodged on 20.11.2016 at about 9.15 p.m., but in his examination-in-chief in Para-1, P.W. 4 has stated as follows:- “1. Informant in this case is my son. Victim is my granddaughter. I know accused Ramesh Pradhan. He is my co-villager. The alleged incident was happened in the year 2016. At the time of alleged incident I was not present in the house and had gone to another village in the Kirtan Party. On the next day morning while I returned to house, I heard about the incident from my son. He told that accused gave a guava to suni and stating to give more guava to her to mango orchard and sexually assaulted her there. I suggested him to report the matter at p.s. So, the informant and myself taking the victim went to p.s. and there the informant lodged a report.”

4.10. P.W. 5 who happens to be the elder brother of the informant did not support the prosecution case // 9 // and only submitted that he has heard about the alleged incident and has no personal knowledge about the occurrence. Statement of P.W. 5 in Para-1 reads as follows:- “1. Informant in this case is my elder brother. I know accused Ramesh Pradhan. Victim Suni happens to be my niece. The alleged incident was happened last I have no personal knowledge about year. occurrence. I have only heard that accused committed sexual assault on the victim.”

4.11. Learned counsel for the appellant accordingly contended that since there is discrepancy in the statement of P.W. 1 to 5 with regard to the alleged occurrence, the same should not have been taken into consideration and relied on by the learned Trial Court while holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section-376(2)(i) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4.12. It is also contended that in view of the evidence of Doctor-P.W. 11, no case under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is made out. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed vide the impugned // 10 // judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, even though the incident occurred during broad day light. Therefore, the prosecution allegation is liable to be disbelieved.

4.13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yerumalla Latchaiah v. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 713. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-3 of the judgment has held as follows:- “3. In the present case, age of the victim was only eight years at the time of alleged occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence, she was examined by Dr. K. Sucheritha (PW 7) who has stated in her evidence that no injury was found on any part of the body of the victim, much less on private part. Hymen was found intact and the doctor has specifically stated that there was no sign of rape at all. In the medical report, it has been stated that vaginal smears collected and examined under the microscope but no sperm detected. The evidence of the prosecutrix is belied by the medical evidence. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction.”

4.14. Reliance was also placed to another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, // 11 // reported in (2006) 10 SCC 92. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-9 & 14 of the judgment has held as follows:- “9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by the whole surrounding any medical evidence or circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen. intercourse allegedly committed by

14. On a consideration of the entire evidence in this case, we are of the view that there is a serious doubt regarding the sexual appellant on the prosecutrix. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of those doubts and we are of the view that the High Court and the Sessions Court erred in finding the appellant guilty. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant, who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.”

4.15. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 15 SCC

566. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-9 & 11 of the judgment has held as follows:- “9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that the story is indeed improbable. the very principles which govern

11. As already mentioned above the medical evidence does not support the commission of rape. Moreover, the // 12 // two or three persons who were present in the factory premises when the rape had been committed were not examined in court as witnesses though their statements had been recorded during the course of the investigation. In this background, merely because the vaginal swabs and the salwar had semen stains thereon would, at best, be evidence of the commission of sexual intercourse but not of rape. Significantly also, the semen found was not co-related to the appellant as his blood samples had not been taken.”

5. Mr. A.K. Pati, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment, contended that even though P.W. 11 in his evidence held that there are no recent signs and symptoms of sexual intercourse, but submitted that it cannot be excluded. It is accordingly contended that in view of such statement of P.W. 11, allegation of rape cannot be ruled out.

5.1. It is further contended that in view of the evidence of the victim-P.W. 1 and her U/s.164 statement, so recorded by the Magistrate which remains uncontroverted, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment.

5.2. It is contended that the victim fully corroborated the prosecution allegation in her evidence as P.W. 1 and taking into account the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3, // 13 // learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is also contended that since the appellant in the meantime has already undergone more than 9 (nine) years of the sentence having been in custody

21.11.2016, the appellant does not deserve any sympathy from this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court finds that basing on the FIR lodged by P.W. 2/father of the victim on 20.11.2016, Pallahara P.S. Case No.64 dated 20.11.2016 was registered for the offence under Section-376(2)(i) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (P.A) Amendment Act,

2015. Appellant faced the trial for the aforesaid offences with framing of charge in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Angul. // 14 //

6.1. As found, prosecution in order to prove the allegation, examined 13 nos. of witnesses which includes P.W. 1 as the victim. P.W. 2 is the father/informant of the case and P.W. 3 is the mother of the victim, P.W. 4 and 5 are related witnesses of the victim. P.W. 11 is the doctor who examined the victim. This Court after going through the evidence of P.W. 1 vis-(cid:224)-vis the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3 and the FIR allegation made by P.W. 2, finds that there are serious discrepancies with regard to disclosure of the incident by the victim to her parents.

6.2. In view of such discrepancies in the statement of P.W. 1, 2 and 3, the same should not have been relied on by the learned Special Judge while holding the appellant guilty of the offences. Not only that in view of the evidence of the Doctor-P.W. 11, the allegation that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse cannot be believed. The victim who happens to be a minor of 6(six) years was examined on the very next date of the alleged occurrence by // 15 // P.W. 11 and nothing was found that the victim was subjected to such crime.

6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation of the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash judgment dated 12.04.2019 so passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Angul in Special POCSO Case No.115 of 2016 and quash the same accordingly.

7. The Appeal accordingly stands allowed. Appellant be released from custody forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th of January, 2026/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Jan-2026 11:56:59