ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
Sanat Kumar Pradhan – Appellant
versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Crl.A.No. 1145 of 2025
Decided on 13.2.2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal against conviction – Once prosecution makes a convincing case for recording a finding of guilt, courts must not lean toward acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or treating unfounded doubts as real.
(2) Rape of minor girl – Evidence of victim cannot be approached with presumption of distrust merely because of circumstances highlighted by defence – In sexual assault cases delay per se is not fatal.
(3) Crime against children – No Panchayat is a court of law – A Sarpanch does not exercise authority of a Magistrate, nor do village elders acquire jurisdiction over criminal offences – Adjudication of crime belongs to institutions of legal system alone.
(4) Sarpanch or village elder has no mandate to decide whether crime against a child should reach police – Their duty is to ensure that the law takes its course, not to obstruct it by convening meetings or brokering compromises within village.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374[Section 415 of BNSS] – Appeal against conviction – In an appeal by a convicted accused, High Court must conduct fresh appraisal of entire record – It is duty bound, in same way as trial court, to test evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and arrive at an independent conclusion on guilt or innocence – If on re-appraisal two views are possible, appellate court must adopt the view favourable to accused and extend benefit of reasonable doubt – At the same time, it should not overturn trial court’s conviction simply by focusing on minor inconsistencies or technicalities – Once prosecution makes a convincing case for recording a finding of guilt, courts must not lean toward acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or treating unfounded doubts as real – Court may re-examine evidence in full, but must do so conscientiously and not disturb conviction unless trial court’s findings are demonstrably perverse or unsupportable on record. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Rape of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – In sexual-offence trial unshaken testimony of a reliable victim (prosecutrix) can by itself sustain conviction – Victim has consistently stated that appellant visited her house in absence of her parents and committed alleged act, and thereafter continued to maintain relations with her over a period of time – Her account of occurrence, disclosure made to her mother, and circumstances surrounding village meeting find material support in evidence of PWs – Subsequent marriage between parties, though not determinative of guilt by itself, forms part of surrounding circumstances which prosecution relies upon to show that incident had in fact taken place – Evidence of victim cannot be approached with presumption of distrust merely because of circumstances highlighted by defence – In sexual assault cases delay per se is not fatal, given reasons are plausible – Delay in lodging FIR, though significant, cannot by itself be treated as fatal to prosecution – Defective investigation does not automatically invalidate prosecution – Criminal liability attaches to act at the time of its commission – Where foundational fact of minority is established, statutory protection is not negotiable; it cannot be postponed by social arrangement, nor extinguished by later events – Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court affirmed. (Paras 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 42)

(C) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – (B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Crime against children – No Panchayat is a court of law – A Sarpanch does not exercise authority of a Magistrate, nor do village elders acquire jurisdiction over criminal offences merely by convening a meeting – Adjudication of crime belongs to institutions of legal system alone – When village bodies assume to themselves task of deciding or “settling” such allegations, they step beyond their lawful role and act in clear disregard of authority of law – Those who occupy positions of leadership in a community must remember that their authority carries responsibility – Sarpanch or village elder has no mandate to decide whether crime against a child should reach police – Their duty is to ensure that the law takes its course, not to obstruct it by convening meetings or brokering compromises within village – District Administration and Police authorities shall take steps to ensure that persons occupying positions of authority in village institutions are made aware of their statutory obligations under POCSO Act, particularly duty to report offences involving children. (Paras 37, 41 and 44)

Result: Appeal dismissed.