##PAGE1##

DSRLCD S oiieUa gg ca t i n T i ea tg sae T:to i ld A0o n ny 8nC b: S -: a yAK JO i: u gu B t Rl nt - h u H 2 e IeS0 dAn r S2 Bt e 6AicA a 1 HGt 7 N iIRo :G1 nAH4 o H : 1CI t 5 JO H V UARN e TK, r A i R fied IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 489 of 2023 and CRLA No.483 of 2023 (In the matter of applications u nder Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

P ramod Bariha …. Appellant (s)

(In CRLA No.489 of 2023) Abhilash Bariha @ Bariha (In CRLA No.483 of 2023)

-versus-

State of Odisha …. Respondent (s)

Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dipti Ranjan Swain, Adv.

Mr. S.S. Ray (2), Adv.

For R espon C d O en R t A ( s M ) :

: Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.06.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. Since both the CRLAs arise out of the same factual background and involve the same issue, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In both the above-mentioned Criminal Appeals, the Appellants seek a direction from this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Bolangir, challenging DSRLCD S oiieUa gg ca t i n T i ea tg sae T:to i ld A0o n ny 8nC b: S -: a yAK JO i: u gu B t Rl nt - h u H 2 e IeS0 dAn r S2 Bt e 6AicA a 1 HGt 7 N iIRo :G1 nAH4 o H : 1CI t 5 JO H V UARN e TK, r A i R fied the POCSO conviction, the finding of minority, and the reliance placed on the prosecutrix’s testimony.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

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

(i) On the night of 03.04.2016, when the parents of the victim were away from village Salebarat, accused Abhilash Bariha visited her house in the evening on the pretext of purchasing a hen and paid Rs. 200/- for it. Later that night between 9 and 10 PM, both accused Pramod Bariha and Abhilash Bariha returned on the same pretext, and upon the victim opening the door, Abhilash caught hold of her, gagged her mouth, pulled and dragged her, and both accused together lifted and carried her to Gidhghar Pahada, a hillock near the village.

(ii) The victim was kept confined at GidhgharPahada from the night of 03.04.2016 until the morning of 05.04.2016, spanning two nights and one day. During this period, both accused allegedly tied her, denied her food throughout, and repeatedly committed rape on her. On the morning of 05.04.2016, the accused brought her down from the Pahada and abandoned her near her house, whereafter she disclosed the entire incident to gathered villagers and subsequently to her parents, police, and the Magistrate.

(iii) The father of the victim, Dambarudhar Sahu (PW-1), lodged an FIR on 04.04.2016 at Sindhekela PS stating that his minor daughter had gone missing from the house and that gold ornaments worth about one and a half bhari were also missing.

DSRLCD S oiieUa gg ca t i n T i ea tg sae T:to i ld A0o n ny 8nC b: S -: a yAK JO i: u gu B t Rl nt - h u H 2 e IeS0 dAn r S2 Bt e 6AicA a 1 HGt 7 N iIRo :G1 nAH4 o H : 1CI t 5 JO H V UARN e TK, r A i R fied He suspected kidnapping by someone who had seduced her. The police registered PS Case No. 71/2016 under Section 363 IPC, and after investigation, submitted chargesheet on 05.07.2016 under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Special Court framed charges on 08.03.2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 6 and

10 of the POCSO Act.

(iv) The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in total. PW-2 is the victim and sole eyewitness. PW-1 and PW-3 are her father and mother who deposed about receiving telephonic news of her disappearance and what the victim disclosed upon her return. PW-4 and PW-5 are co-villagers who heard the account from the victim herself when she was abandoned near her house. PW-7 and PW-12 are medical officers who examined the two accused respectivel