Orissa High Court
Ranjita Sahoo & Another vs State Of Orissa on 9 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.219 of 2020
In the matter of an application for appeal under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C
..................
Ranjita Sahoo & Another Appellants
....
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondents
For Appellant : M/s. A. Das, S.C.Mishra, A.Das,
A. Sahoo, Advocate
For Respondents : M/s. A.K. Pati,
Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025 and Date of Judgment:09.01.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants challenging the impugned judgment dt.21.01.2020 so passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Phulbani, in C.T.Case No.194 of 2016, arising out of Balliguda P.S. Case No.187 dt.24.12.2016. Vide the impugned judgment, present // 2 // Appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 363,366A,376(2)(i),376D/323/34 of the I.P.C r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C & S.T (P.A) Act
2. The Appellants have been convicted to undergo R.I for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, R.I for 4 months for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C, S.I for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default S.I for 5 months for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C, R.I for 20 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, R.I for 6 months for the offence under Section 376D of IPC, R.I for 10 years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default R.I for 5 months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and R.I for one year for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, learned Trial Court directed all the sentences to run concurrently.
3. Learned Counsel appearing from the Appellants contended that basing on the F.I.R lodged by the mother of the victim-P.W.5 on 24.12.2016, Baliguda P.S. Case No.187 dt.24.12.2016 was registered against Page 2 of 15 // 3 // the present appellants and another for the offence under Section 363,366(A), 376(2) (i), 376D, 323/34 of the I.P.C and Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S.T (P.A) Act. After submission of the charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences, the appellants along with the other co- accused faced the trial for the offence under Section 363,366(A),376(2)(i),376D,323/34 of the I.P.C and Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S.T (P.A) Act.
3.2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R is that on 24.12.2016, the informant reported before the IIC, Balliguda P.S that, on 22.12.2016 evening hour while the victim moving near her house verandah the accused persons came in a Motor Cycle and took her in a Car to nearby Bhagamunda and committed rape on her. Thereafter left her there in senseless condition. When she regained her sense, she called nearby people and the nearby people took her to Balliguda hospital. Then on 23.12.2016 the informant came to know about the incident and went to Balliguda hospital and found Page 3 of 15 // 4 // her daughter in injured condition and her daughter narrated the incident to her. Then her daughter was referred to Phulbani hospital for further treatment. Then the informant reported the matter to the police. 3.3. While assailing the order of conviction and sentence so passed against the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently contended that even though the alleged incident occurred on 22.12.2016 and the victim was taken for her treatment to Balliguda Hospital, but factum of rape on the victim by the accused persons was never disclosed. Not only that in the medical report so prepared by the treating doctor in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Balliguda, so exhibited as Ext.A in terms of order dt.27.06.2022 of this Court, nothing was disclosed about the alleged incident of rape. In the alternate, victim was treated for her suffering of multiple injuries on 22.12.2016.
3.4. The victim thereafter was shifted to District Headquarter Hospital, Phulbani, where she was admitted on 23.12.2016, with date of discharge as Page 4 of 15 // 5 // 31.12.2016. In the Discharge Certificate issued by DHH, Phulbani so exhibited vide Ext.A, nothing was indicated with regard to treatment of the victim for the alleged incident of rape.
3.5. It is accordingly contended that since after the alleged incident dt.22.12.2016, nothing was disclosed either by the victim or by P.W.5-informant regarding the alleged incident of rape and instead the victim was treated for her suffering due to multiple injury, allegation of rape so made against the appellants by the informant, while lodging the F.I.R on 24.12.2016, is outrightly false and cannot be believed. 3.6. It is also contended that even though the incident took place on 22.12.2016 and the F.I.R was lodged on 24.12.2016, but no explanation was given with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. Since delay in lodging the F.I.R was never disclosed, allegation made in the F.I.R should not have been believed by the learned Trial Court, while convicting the appellants for the alleged offences.
Page 5 of 15
// 6 // 3.7. It is also further contended that even though after lodging of the F.I.R on 24.12.2016, the victim was referred for her examination on 04.01.2017, but the said medical report was never exhibited, nor the treating physician was examined as a prosecution witness. Not only that, treatment of the victim in SDH, Balliguda so exhibited vide Ext.A, was also never produced by the prosecution during trial nor the treating physician of SDH Balliguda and DHH, Phulbani were examined by the prosecution witness in support of the allegation of rape on the victim. 3.8. It is accordingly contended that since the medical report so prepared by the doctor, after the victim was referred for examination on 04.01.2017 was never exhibited nor the concerned doctor was examined as a prosecution witness, conviction of the appellants for the alleged offences is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.4. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to the following decisions:
(a)Dusasan Bhoi vs. State of Odisha, reported in (1995) 9 OCR 306;Page 6 of 15
// 7 //
(b)Bhati Binda Bebera vs. State of Odisha, reported in (1997) 12 OCR 296.
(c) Pratap Mishra & another vs. State of Odisha reported in (1997) SCC (Cri) 447. 3.5. This Court in the case of Dusasan Bhoi in para 7 of the judgment held as follows:
7. On a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that non-examination of the investigating officer as well as non-examination of the doctor at the appellate stage caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the conviction cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. With the setting aside of the conviction, the order of the learned sessions Judge directing release of the petitioner on probation has become infructuous.
The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Revision is accordingly allowed.
3.6. This Court in the case of Bhati Binda Bebera in para 7 of the judgment held as follows:
7. The victim was examined by the doctor (PW 9).
The doctor did not find any injury on private part of the victim or any sign of forcible sexual intercourse. If the victim had, in fact, no sexual encounter earlier and the occurrence was the first of its kind and the intercourse was forcible and that too on a paddy field while the victim was allegedly struggling, in ordinary course, the doctor would have found some injuries on the private part as well as others parts of the body specially the back side and the buttocks.
Even the version of the victim that her finger was bitten by the accused does not find support from the medical evidence, inasmuch as there is no mark of teeth on the finger. In view of the aforesaid circumstances which have not been noticed by the appellate court, it is difficult to uphold the order of conviction.
Page 7 of 15
// 8 // 3.7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Mishra in para 23 of its judgment held as follows:
23. Furthermore when the evidence of the prosecutrix is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence consisting of PWs 8 and 10, when it is found to be false in material particulars regarding the preparation of the seizure lists, when it is wholly discrepant with respect to a most vital point, namely, the manner in which the appellant 1 committed rape on her and finally when she has been guilty of deliberately suppressing the truth by denying the towel recovered to be the one which was used in the offence, which she herself had pointed out to the A.S.I. at the time of the seizure on April 19,1972 it is difficult for us to place any implicit reliance on the testimony of such a witness.
3.8. Learned counsel appearing for Appellants accordingly contended that since after the alleged incident on 22.12.2016 and on the face of the treatment of the victim in SDH, Balliguda as well as DHH, Phulbani, nothing was disclosed by the victim or by the informant regarding the alleged incident of rape, not only the initiation of the proceeding for the alleged offences against the appellants is vitiated, but also the impugned order of conviction and sentence so passed vide the impugned judgment dt.21.01.2020. It is however contended that after initiation of the prosecution case in Baliguda P.S. Case No.187 dt.24.12.2016, Petitioners on being arrested and Page 8 of 15 // 9 // remanded to custody are languishing in custody since 08.01.2017.
4. Mr. A.K. Pati, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order of conviction and sentence so passed vide judgment dt.21.01.2020 under Annexure-1 contended that in view of the evidence of the victim so recorded as P.W.4 read with the evidence of the informant P.W.5 and that of P.W.6, father of the victim, allegation of rape by the present appellants on the victim has been well-proved. 4.1. It is contended that on the face of the statement of the victim, P.W.4, no further material is required to be proved to bring the allegation of rape on the appellants. The victim in her cross-examination clearly implicated the present Appellants having committed on her. Statement of the victim in her cross-examination reads as follows:
Cross Examination by the accused Ranjit Sahu and Aruna Sahu The Kanya Asharam school is about 1 km away from our village. 6 to 7 nos of girls of our village studying in that school. There are 10 houses in our village. We have seven member in our family Including, one sister myself and three brother. The Page 9 of 15 // 10 // neighbour for my house are Guni Mallick, Ajit Mallick. Bidyadhara Mallick, Parsusram Mallick and Ananta Mallick. I usually moved outside along with my six friends. As it was a dark, I have not marked the Regd No. of the bike, colour and also its model. I have raise protest, but as my mouth was shut up I could not shout. As it was dark I have seen no body, nor any body has seen me. From the spot, of my kidnapping in the forest many villages intervening, but I can not say, their name. On the way. I have also raise protest physically through my hands and legs. I can not say the name of the driver of the car and so also the regd no. for the car. The place where I was raped was rough. There I have raise protest physically. I receive injury at my back, ankle and knees. I have shown, such injuries to the doctor. I have not disclosed about the occurrence to the doctor at Phulbani. The seized articles are not produced in the court, today. I was examined by police. It is not a fact that, I have not stated before the police that, near the breeze Aruna Naik standing and these two accused persons took me to the forest. I have not led the police to the spot. Police also not seized the stone in which, I was assaulted. It is not a fact that, I have not stated before police that, I could not say to my father about the occurrence at Balliguda and I could say only at Phulbani hospital.
It is not a fact that, the accused have not lifted nor kidnapped me nor committed rape on me and I have not sustained any injury due to rape and I sustained my injury only fall and now I deposed falsehood.
4.2. It is also contended that the informant implicated the Appellants having committed the offence of rape on the victim in her examination-in-chief. Since the victim disclosed the incident to the informant, while under treatment at SDH, Balliguda on 23.1.2.2016, the F.I.R was lodged on 24.12.2016. Accordingly no delay can be attributed with regard to such lodging of F.I.R on Page 10 of 15 // 11 // 24.12.2016 in respect of the alleged incident dt.22.12.2016. Statement of the informant in her examination-in-chief reads as follows:
The victim is my daughter, I am the informant of this case. I know all the accused person is standing in the dock. The occurrence took place on 22.12.2016. I knew about the incident on the next day of the occurrence. On receipt of information from the medical staff I went to the medical, on the next day. When the victim regain ber series, being asked, disclosed that, all the three accused persons sexually harassed her. As per the victim, she has been taken to Dahalapadi village. They committed rape on her. On hearing from the victim I lodged FIR at P.S being scribed by P.W-3 (Runu Digal). This is the report and I have put my LTI over it (report has been marked as Ext.3). I was examined by police. daughter was a in Kanya Ashrama school, Badagaon in class 10. At that time she was 15 years old. We are Kandha by caste and they are general caste. My daughter sustained injury at her face area. The victim was first medically examined at Balliguda then she was referred to Phulbani hospital.
4.3. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel accordingly contended that since allegation of rape has been well proved by the victim in her statement as P.W.4, no further material is required to upheld the order of conviction and sentence so passed rightly against the appellants.
4.4. A further submission was also made that the victim after lodging of the F.I.R, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C on Page 11 of 15 // 12 // 31.01.2017 by the learned S.D.J.M., Balliguda. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim clearly stated about the rape so committed by the present appellants on her on 22.12.2016.
4.5. Making all these submissions, leaned Addl.
Standing Counsel contended that the appellants have been rightly convicted vide the impugned judgment which requires no interference.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this court finds that basing on the F.I.R lodged by the informant-P.W.5 on 24.12.2016, Balliguda P.S.Case No.187 dt.24.12.2016 was registered against the present appellants and another for the offences under Section 363,366A, 376(2) (i), 376D/323/34 of the I.P.C r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C & S.T (P.A) Act. After being charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, the appellants along with the other accused faced the trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Phulbani. Vide the impugned judgment, the Appellants have been Page 12 of 15 // 13 // convicted to undergo sentence on different counts for the aforesaid offences, save and except for the offence under Section 3(2)(b) of the S.C. & S.T (P.A) Act. Not only that, vide the impugned judgment, the other accused Aruna Sahu was acquitted from the charges. 5.1. It is found that even though the incident occurred on 22.12.2016 and the victim was taken to sub- Divisional Hospital, Balliguda on the very same date and was treated in the said hospital, prior to being referred to DHH Phulbani on 23.12.2016, but neither the medical report so prepared by the SDH, Balliguda and DHH, Phulbani were exhibited by the prosecution in course of trial. However, the medical report pursuant to order dt.27.06.2022 of this Court has been exhibited as Ext.A. 5.2. This Court after going through the document vide Ext. A finds that the victim was treated in SDH Balliguda on 22.12.2016 for her suffering of multiple injuries. Even though the victim was treated in SDH, Balliguda and thereafter in DHH, Phulbani w.e.f 22.12.2016 to 31.01.2016, but nothing was disclosed Page 13 of 15 // 14 // either by the victim or by the informant with regard to the alleged rape on the victim committed by the present appellants.
5.3. Even though the victim after lodging of the F.I.R was referred for fresh examination by the I.O on 04.01.2017, but no such medical report of the victim was exhibited by the prosecution nor the concerned doctor who examined the victim was examined as a prosecution witness. It is also found from the record that after due examination of the materials, State Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter dt.10.10.2017, clearly intimated that nothing has been found with regard to the alleged incident of rape on the victim. 5.4. Since the medical report so prepared after examination of the victim on 04.01.2017 was never exhibited nor the concerned doctor was examined as a witness, placing reliance on the document available vide Ext.A and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the Page 14 of 15 // 15 // allegation of rape against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
5.5. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned judgment dt.21.01.2020 so passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Phulbani in C.T. Case No.194 of 2016. While quashing the impugned judgment, this Court directs for release of the appellants from custody, if their custody is not required in any other cases.
5.6. The appeal accordingly stands allowed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th January, 2026 /Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of oriss, cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2026 18:09:14 Page 15 of 15