Ranjan Barik v. State of Odisha

-30.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2025 and the order of sentence dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (FTSC), Angul in Special (POCSO) Case No.18 of 2011 / T.R. No.55 of 2022, whereby the Appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 342/34, 506/34 and 368 of the pg. 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Upon such conviction, each of the Appellants was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 368 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act; and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506 IPC.

It was directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, with benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 342 IPC, the same being treated as merged with the conviction under Section 368 of IPC. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution story is that the mother of the victim lodged a report before the Bantala Police Station on

26.02.2022 at 9.45 A.M. that the victim aged about 14 years was pursuing her studies for two years, staying at the house of Laxmidhar Barik (father of the informant) at village Hamamira. On 25.02.2022 in the night at about 8.00 P.M., the accused Raja Barik forcibly took the victim by gagging her mouth. After learning this occurrence, they went to the house of the accused Raja Barik. On being asked about the victim, the accused Ranjan Barik, Jayanti Barik and Bhalu Barik who kept the victim in their house under lock told the informant that what pg. 2 Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 they could do, let them do. Thereafter, they abused the informant parties in vulgar language. The accused Ranjan Barik holding a Tangia (axe) rushed to assault them. Further, they were threatened that if they did not go away from the spot, then they would be killed and the naked photo of the victim would be made viral. They also threatened to kill the victim by pouring kerosene on her. On such report, the police registered a case and took up the investigation

During the course of investigation, the first I.O., P.W.10, visited the spot i.e. the house of Laxmidhar Barik, examined the witnesses, proceeded to the house of the accused Ranjit Barik, apprehended the accused Ranjit Barik and rescued the victim from his house. The I.O. seized the admission register of Bedasasan G.P. High School to ascertain the date of birth of the victim. He requested the S.D.P.O., Angul to depute a lady Sub-Inspector of Police to examine the victim and record her statement. Accordingly, one Reetarani Pradhan, S.I. of Police, examined the victim and recorded her statement. The victim was sent to the hospital for her medical examination with escorts. The accused Ranjit Barik was also sent to the Hospital for his medical examination with escorts. After the medical examination, the respective escorts produced the biological materials of the victim and the accused and preserved the same in sealed vials. The victim was examined before the Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C

On 27.02.2022, the I.O. issued notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C to the other accused persons, named, Ranjan Barik, Jayanti Barik and pg. 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 Bhalu@ Sujit Barik. The I.O forwarded the seized articles to the SFSL for Chemical Examination. On 25.03.2022, the victim was further examined by lady Inspector of Police Sumitra Patra and again gave statement under Section l64 of the Cr.P.C. The I.O. received the caste particulars from the Tahasildar, Angul of the accused persons who are Bhandari by caste and the informant and the victim are Keuta by caste and member of the Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, he requested the Superintendent of Police, Angu to hand over the charge of investigation to an Officer of Police at the rank of D.S.P. As per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Angul, the D.S.P., Angul (P.W.9) took charge of the investigation. During her investigation, she also sought for the caste particulars of the accused persons and the victim and examined the spot. On completion of the investigation, she filed the charge-sheet

On an appraisal of evidence on record, the trial court vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence held the prosecution to have proved the aforesaid charges and convicted the present Appellants thereunder as stated supra. II.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: In assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. There is no iota of evidence against the appellants to have committed the crime pg. 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41

He further contended that in absence of any concrete incriminating materials envisaged against the present Appellants, the Investigating Officer, instead of following the due procedure of arrest, had adopted the approach of issuing notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. while forwarding the principal accused Raja @ Ranjit Barik, which itself demonstrates that the Appellants were not directly involved in the alleged occurrence.

It was further submitted that on a bare perusal of the testimony of P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer, it is evident that during the rescue operation the only name canvassed was that of accused Raja @ Ranjit Barik. The names of the present Appellants were never mentioned at the time of rescue. But, surprisingly, on the very next day, notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. was issued against them without any supporting material, thereby indicating false implication.

A bare perusal of the testimony of P.W.2 (victim), particularly in Para- I4, it is revealed that during the act of kidnapping, she had allegedly sustained injuries on her hands and legs, with an assertion of bleeding injury on the fingers. However, the medical evidence is completely silent on such injuries, rather, runs contrary to the narrative of the victim, thereby creating a serious dent in her credibility.

He further submitted that it is settled canon of law as laid down in Limala Kamudu Versus State of Orissa1, that in absence of corroborating medical evidence, the uncorroborated narrative of the 1 2010 (1) Crimes 1000(Ori) pg. 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 victim creates doubt on the reliability of testimony, and conviction cannot be sustained on such shaky foundation

Learned Trial Court erred in relying upon the sole testimony of P.W.2 (victim), ignoring the settled principle that conviction cannot rest on uncorroborated, inconsistent and inherently improbable testimony when other evidence on record does not support the prosecution case. Further, the Learned Trial Court delivered the conclusive findings without discussing or analyzing the specific role, if any, of the present Appellants. Such a mechanical approach without individualized assessment of participation reflects non-application of judicial mind, rendering the judgment is unsustainable in law.

It was further submitted that on a close scrutiny of Section 368 of the I.P.C., which mandates the twin requirements of (i) knowledge of kidnapping, and (ii) wrongful concealment or confinement, it becomes clear that neither of these ingredients has been established against the present Appellants. Even if the prosecution version is taken on face value (without admitting), the evidence only attributes a vague and limited role to the Appellants at a post-occurrence stage. There is no material to establish wrongful concealment or confinement. Thus, conviction under Section 368 of the I.P.C. against the present Appellants is wholly unjustified.

It was contended that once the offence under Section 368 of the I.P.C. is not made out, the consequential invocation of Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is also unsustainable. The said provision is only pg. 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 attracted when a substantive I.P.C. offence is proved, which is absent in the present case.

The conviction under Section 342 of the I.P.C. is equally untenable, inasmuch as there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Appellants ever confined the victim or any other person. Even accepting the prosecution case at its highest (without admitting), no ingredients of wrongful confinement are established.

The prolonged and improved statements of prosecution witnesses appear to be afterthoughts, casting grave suspicion on the authenticity of the prosecution version, particularly in light of contradictions with the medical evidence and the testimony of the I.O.

The entire prosecution story, riddled with exaggerations and contradictions, appears to be a fabricated version aimed at falsely roping on the Appellants while the real allegations were only against Raja @ Ranjit Barik.

Learned Trial Court wrongly relied upon prosecution witnesses whose depositions are marred by inherent contradictions and material discrepancies, which are substantial in nature and create grave doubt about the prosecution story.

Learned Court below failed to appreciate that the present Appellants were not present at the spot during the course of incident, and at best were falsely implicated in a post-occurrence manner. Their alleged role is so vague and unsubstantiated that it cannot, in law, lead to their guilt for the offences charged. pg. 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41

Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the substratum of the prosecution case rests upon omnibus and sweeping allegations without any specific attribution of overt acts against the present appellants, thereby rendering the conviction is unsustainable in law.

The finding of guilt under Section 506 of the I.P.C. is erroneous, since the prosecution witnesses have not been able to establish any clear or unequivocal act of criminal intimidation attributable Appellants. The allegations made are vague, general, and devoid of particulars, which cannot form the basis of a conviction.

The invocation of Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is unsustainable law, as there is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that the alleged acts were committed on account of the caste or community of the complainant or with any intention to humiliate him on the ground of caste, which is an essential ingredient to attract the penal provision under the special enactment.

The learned Trial Court, while recording the conviction, has not taken into consideration the settled position of law that in criminal jurisprudence the benefit of doubt must always enure to the accused. In the present case where serious inconsistencies and material contradictions stare at the face of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were entitled to acquittal rather than conviction.

In such view of the matter, it was contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence should be set aside. pg. 8 III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ STATE:

In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that the Doctor has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 given a margin of three years i.e. the victim was aged between 14 to 17 years. When the margin has been given, there cannot be any further addition to the age of the victim. More so, the prosecution has proved the Admission Register and the basis of entry in the Admission Register is the Birth Certificate of the victim. The Prosecution has also proved the Birth Certificate of the victim wherein the date of birth of the victim has been recorded as 30.10.2007. It is also proved that the victim was born at the District Headquarter Hospital, Angul. So, the victim was aged about 14 years 03 months and 15 days old. The defence except a bare suggestion has not placed any material either eliciting from the mouth of any of the prosecution witnesses or by placing separate materials disputed to prove that the victim was more than eighteen years of age on 25.02.2022. The Prosecution has proved the victim to be a child under 16 years of age by the time of occurrence on 25.02.2022.

In reply to the submission of the Appellants to the effect that the victim was in love affair with the accused and she voluntarily left her house and came to the house of the accused persons and the victim is not a trustworthy witness as she has developed a version regarding sexual intercourse by accused Ranjit after one month of the occurrence, it was submitted that the victim was found in the house of the accused persons and she was rescued by the police on 26.02.2022. The victim was medically examined and the Doctor found, her hymen pg. 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 ruptured and the ruptured of the hymen was due to sexual intercourse with her. Moreover, during her medical examination on

26.02.2022, the victim narrated before the Doctor that the accused Raja Barik forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The Doctor recorded such narration of the victim in her medical examination report and proved the same in the Court. So, the victim has not developed any story of commission of sexual intercourse with her. The victim has categorically explained when the defence asked her to explain as to why she did not make a proper statement before the Police and the Magistrate. The victim (P.W.2) has stated in her evidence during cross examination in para- 16 that as she was threatened by the accused that he would kill her and her family and to make her photo viral, she could not give proper statement before the Magistrate and Police. The victim also stated in para-8 that after staying with her parents, she got composed and felt assured and, thereafter, she gave a detail statement before the Police and the Magistrate. The victim was a child of 14 years and when she was threatened that harm would be caused to her and her family and her photo will be made viral obviously, she would be scared. When the evidence of the victim gets ample corroboration from the medical evidence that sexual intercourse has been committed on her, there is no reason to disbelieve her version. The accused persons being known the victim to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, confined the victim in their house. The victim has specifically stated that she was pg. 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 kidnapped by the accused while she came out of their house to urinate. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charges.

To sum up, learned counsel for the State contended that the trial court has considered all the aspects relevant for the purpose of award of sentence while imposing substantive sentence to undergo R.I. for five years on each of the Appellants. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, contended that the Appeal may be dismissed. IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ INFORMANT:

Supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/ Informant submits that the main accused Ranjit who is the son of the Appellants kidnapped the victim girl aged about 14 years from a distance of 3 K.M.s by gagging her mouth. When the informant and her husband went to the house of the accused and asked about their daughter, the present Appellants had threatened them and abused them and did not allow them to see their daughter. Rather, they locked the door and allowed the accused to commit the crime. Apart from above, the accused Ranjan Barik holding a tangia rushed to assault them and they were threatened that if they did not go away from the spot then they would be killed and the naked photo of the victim would be made viral. pg. 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41

He further submitted that the learned Trial Court has annalised the evidence properly. The evidence of the victim, P.W.2 and the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 5 has corroborated with each other. The victim, P.W.2 has stated that prior to the present occurrence the accused had harassed and passed comments on her. The accused had also given undertaking not to harass the victim further. The Appellants knowing very well that the victim belongs to S.C. & S.T. community intentionally and deliberately committed the crime and, hence, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the present Appellants

The informant further contended that that there is threat to the life of the victim and they have been forced to settle the dispute. In such circumstances, the prayer of the Appellants needs to be rejected in the interest of justice.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and the facts that there are sufficient evidences against the Appellants, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/ Informant that the present Appellants have rightly been convicted by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence need no interference. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

This Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, the learned counsel for the State, as well as the learned counsel for the Informant, and has carefully perused the entire trial court record. pg. 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41

The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Convicts– Appellants challenging the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2025 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC, Angul in Special (POCSO) Case No.18 of 2011 / T.R. No.55 of 2022, whereby the Appellants were found guilty under Sections 342/34, 506/34, 368 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the learned Trial Court has failed to conduct a legally sustainable appreciation of evidence, has mechanically invoked penal provisions without satisfying their statutory ingredients, and has convicted the Appellants on generalized allegations without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution case, as emerging from the First Information Report and the evidence adduced during trial, is that on the night of

25.02.2022, the victim girl aged about 14 years was allegedly kidnapped by accused Raja @ Ranjit Barik.

It is further alleged that on the following day, when the informant went to the house of the accused persons in search of the victim, the present Appellants abused and threatened them, prevented them from seeing the victim, and thereby knowingly confined her. On the basis of such allegations, the present Appellants were prosecuted along with the principal accused. pg. 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41

The learned Trial Court, relying primarily upon the testimony of the victim (P.W.2) and certain prosecution witnesses, concluded that the Appellants had knowledge of the kidnapping, had wrongfully confined the victim, had threatened the informant party, and had committed the offences in furtherance of common intention.

The learned Trial Court further held that since the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the Appellants were aware of her caste status, the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act were attracted.

It is well settled that while exercising appellate jurisdiction in a criminal appeal against conviction, the High Court is duty-bound to reappreciate the entire evidence, particularly where the conviction is founded on circumstantial inference, omnibus allegations, or where the liberty of the accused is at stake.

The presumption of innocence, which stands fortified after an acquittal, does not disappear upon conviction; rather, it continues to guide appellate scrutiny, especially where serious doubts arise from the record itself.

Section 368 IPC is a serious penal provision and requires strict proof of its ingredients. The prosecution must establish not only that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the victim had been kidnapped, but also that the accused actively and consciously concealed or confined such person.

The expression “conceals or confines” cannot be interpreted loosely. It postulates the conduct, involving restriction of liberty or deliberate pg. 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 shielding of the victim from lawful recovery. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to place any material to show that the Appellants exercised physical control, restraint, or dominion over the movement of the victim.

The evidence of P.W.10 (Investigating Officer) assumes significance. His testimony clearly reveals that during the rescue operation, only the principal accused Raja @ Ranjit Barik was apprehended, and the victim was recovered from his custody. Notably, at the time of recovery, no accusation was made that the Appellants had locked the room, stood guard, or prevented the victim from leaving.

The Investigating Officer, instead of arresting the Appellants, chose to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on the subsequent day. Such procedural conduct is not a mere formality; it reflects the Investigating Agency’s assessment that no prima facie active role necessitating arrest was disclosed. The learned Trial Court failed to examine the legal significance of this procedural aspect and mechanically proceeded to infer guilt.

The prosecution evidence against the Appellants is confined to broad assertions that they “did not allow” the informant to meet the victim. Such vague assertions, without proof of actual confinement, fall far short of the statutory threshold. This Court, therefore, finds that the essential ingredients of Section 368 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. pg. 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41

Insofar as the offence under Section 342 IPC is concerned, it is founded upon the definition of wrongful confinement under Section 340 IPC, which requires proof that the accused restricted the victim’s movement beyond circumscribed limit. Once the prosecution has failed to establish wrongful confinement under Section 368 IPC, the foundation for Section 342 IPC necessarily badly crumbles.

There is no independent or corroborative evidence to suggest that the Appellants confined the victim in any manner. The conviction under Section 342 IPC is thus wholly unsustainable in law.

The allegations relating to criminal intimidation are generalized and omnibus. The prosecution has failed to specify which Appellant issued which threat, in what words, and with what intent. Criminal intimidation requires proof of intentional threat causing alarm. Mere allegations of abuse or hostility, without evidence of alarm or coercive intent, do not satisfy the legal requirement.

Insofar as section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the learned Trial Court did not undertake an individualized assessment of culpability and instead convicted the Appellants collectively, which is impermissible in criminal law. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 506 IPC cannot be sustained.

In so far as Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act is not an independent offence. Its invocation presupposes the commission of a substantive offence under the IPC on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, apart from the admitted caste status of the victim, the prosecution has pg. 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 not adduced any evidence to demonstrate caste-based motivation or intentional targeting on that ground. Mere knowledge of the caste of the victim does not ipso facto attract the penal provisions of the special enactment. Once the substantive IPC offences are not established, the charge under Section 3(2)(va) automatically falls.

The victim (P.W.2) claimed to have sustained bleeding injuries during the alleged kidnapping. However, the medical evidence is completely silent on the existence of such injuries. Such contradiction is not minor in nature; it goes to the root of the prosecution case, particularly when the role of the Appellants is sought to be inferred indirectly. The learned Trial Court failed to reconcile this inconsistency and proceeded on assumptions, which is impermissible in criminal adjudication. Criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on moral suspicion or emotional response to allegations.

The cumulative effect of absence of specific overt acts, procedural inconsistencies, contradictions with medical evidence, and mechanical application of law entitles the Appellants to the benefit of doubt. It is a settled principle that where two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail. VI. CONCLUSION:

This Court is satisfied that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities, misappreciation of pg. 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:41 evidence, and non-application of judicial mind, warranting interference in appeal.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2025 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC, Angul in Special (POCSO) Case No.18 of 2011 / T.R. No.55 of 2022, so far as the present Appellants are concerned, are hereby set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th Jan., 2026/ pg. 18