Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
Abinash Digal @ Papun Digal – Appellant
versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2024
Decided on 27.2.2026

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Soumyajit Biswoprakash, Mr. G. R. Dhal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC, Ms. Barsharani Sahoo, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Attempt to outrage modesty of minor girl – In order to bring home charge under Section 354 of IPC thereof, prosecution is required to establish that accused, with criminal or sexual intent, assaulted or used criminal force against a woman, thereby outraging or intending to outrage her modesty.
(2) Hostile Witness – Mere fact that a witness has been declared hostile does not render his entire testimony effaced from record – Portion of evidence which inspires confidence and finds corroboration from other materials on record can still be relied upon.

Headnote:
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 354 – Attempt to outrage modesty of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – In order to bring home charge under Section 354 of IPC thereof, prosecution is required to establish that accused, with criminal or sexual intent, assaulted or used criminal force against a woman, thereby outraging or intending to outrage her modesty – In instant case, evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution is stated to be clear and cogent in demonstrating that accused pressed breast of victim, thereby causing alarm and outrage to her modesty – Prosecution has successfully proved charge under 354 of IPC against accused persons – No credible or substantive material has been brought on record by defence to impeach or discredit authenticity of documentary evidence adduced by prosecution with regard to age of victim – There is no material contradiction, interpolation, or infirmity demonstrated in Matriculation certificate or allied educational records so as to render the same doubtful or unreliable – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence affirmed. (Paras 7, 8, 11 and 32)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Though several independent witnesses initially supported prosecution version, they were subsequently declared hostile – Nevertheless, mere fact that a witness has been declared hostile does not render his entire testimony effaced from record – Portion of evidence which inspires confidence and finds corroboration from other materials on record can still be relied upon – It is a matter of common experience in contemporary society that independent witnesses are often reluctant to come forward to depose in support of an incident which has taken place in their presence – On many such instances, such witnesses resile from their earlier statements and declare hostile, which trigger some lacunae in prosecution case – However, such eventuality by itself does not render prosecution version unworthy of acceptance, nor does it absolve Court of its duty to shift evidence and arrive at truth so as to meet ends of justice. (Paras 25 and 25)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The Appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 01.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani, in C.T. Case No.56 of 2021 arising out of Raikia P.S. Case No.82 of 2021, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

I. Factual Matrix of the Case:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 26.08.2021, at about 3 PM, the informant, along with the victim, her parents, and her cousin sister, was travelling from the village Raikia to G. Udayagiri in a Pakhiraj Bus. During the journey, the victim was seated on the right-side window seat of the said bus.

(ii) The Victim alleged that at the relevant time, while the bus was parked in from of the UCO-Bank Chowk, an unknown person approached from outside the bus and pressed breast.

(iii) Due to the said incident, the victim raised alarm, whereupon the informant immediately alighted from the bus and attempted to apprehend the said person. However, the said person assaulted the informant and forcibly took away a sum of Rs 5000/- from his purse. Subsequently, they ascertained the said person was Abinash @ Papu Digal of village Gedingia.

(iv) On that basis of the written report lodged by the informant, Raikia P.S. Case No. 82 of 2021 was registered against the accused. During the investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, examined the witness, and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. The I.O. also took into consideration the relevant documents relating to the age of the victim and found that she was aged about 17 years 5 months and 8 days at the time of the incident.

(v) Subsequently, charges under Section 354 and 392 of the I.P.C. r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act has been framed against the Appellant. Thereafter, trial commenced before the learned Trial Court. Upon completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 354 of I.P.C. and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and acquitted him of the charges of Section 392 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present criminal appeal.

II. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Phulbani passed in C.T. No. 56 of 2021 arising out of P.S. Case No. 82 of 2021, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 56 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Session Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment along with imposition of fine, is wholly erroneous, unsustainable both on facts and in law, and is liable to be set aside.

(ii) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the materials and evidences available on record and thereby erroneously recorded the order of conviction. It is contended that the learned Court below has not applied the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence, as a result of which the impugned judgment has become legally unsustainable.

(iii) The Appellant contends that the