Orissa High Court
Manas Ranjan Barik vs State Of Odisha on 1 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1240 of 2023
Manas Ranjan Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
Order No. 01.05.2023
01. 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the quashing of charge
sheet dated 28th May, 2022 under Sections 376(2)(n), 500, 354(C) of
IPC read with Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) of the Information Technology
Act in C.T. Case No.494 of 2022 relating to P.S. Case No.194 dated
29th March, 2022 at P.S. Baripada Town as well as the order dated 8th
June, 2022 of the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada (now pending before the
learned Special Judge 1st Track, Baripada) taking cognizance of the
aforementioned offences against the Petitioner.
2. It must be mentioned at the outset that the stage of charge has not yet
been reached and there is no order framing charge against the Petitioner
yet. When learned counsel for the Petitioner was asked whether he
would like to reserve his arguments urged at the present moment at the
stage of charge, he insisted that this Court should deal with the matter at
this stage under Section 482 Cr PC. When it was pointed out to him that
if this Court dealt with the arguments at this stage, it might prejudice the
case of his client at the stage of charge, he nevertheless insisted that the
Court should deal with his arguments at this stage under Section 482 Cr
PC. That is why, the Court is now proceeding to discuss the case on
merits.
3. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged against the
Petitioner by the Victim/Informant that the present Petitioner had taken
obscene photos and videos of her and made it viral and despite
promising to delete it, he did not do so. The FIR was registered initially
on 29th March, 2022 under Sections 500 and 354(C) of IPC read with
Section 67 of the I.T. Act.
4. Subsequently, however, when the victim's statement was recorded,
she revealed that she was subjected to sexual assault by the Petitioner
and when she refused to marry him. The accused is alleged to have
made viral the intimate video in the social network. During her medical
examination on 30th March, 2022, she informed the Doctor concerned
that the Petitioner initially had promised to marry her but later refused
to do so. She further disclosed that on 6th November, 2021 he invited
her for reconsideration of the relationship and forced her to have sex
and upon her refusal used physical violence and without her consent,
had sexual intercourse with her; he then used the footage of the videos
to blackmail her. Subsequently, she reiterated this in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr PC.
5. A charge sheet has been filed against the Petitioner on 28th May,
2022 for the aforementioned offences.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought to rely upon the
judgment in Somasundaram @ Somu v. State (2020) 79 OCR (SC) 66
to urge that the statement under Section 164 Cr PC cannot constitute a
substantive piece of evidence and, therefore, no conviction can be based
on that statement alone.
7. In the considered view of the Court, it is misconceived on the part of
the learned counsel for the Petitioner to make the above submission at
this stage, when the question of charge has not yet been taken up by the
trial Court. It is not possible to countenance the plea that not even a
charge can be framed on the basis of the victim's statement under
Section 164 Cr PC. Much less can it be argued that a criminal case
cannot proceed on that basis. While it is true that the statement would
require corroboration but that is a matter that will have to be examined
at the stage of trial when the entire evidence led by the prosecution will
be tested. It is only at the stage of trial that the victim's testimony would
come in for critical examination. Incidentally, there is nothing in the
aforementioned decision in Somasundaram @ Somu v. State (supra)
which even remotely suggests that a statement of a rape victim under
Section 164 Cr PC cannot form the basis of a charge against an accused
for the offence under Section 376 IPC. In the instant case, there is
sufficient material for the trial Court to proceed in the matter.
Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. The Superintendent of the concerned Branch is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned Subordinate Court forthwith.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
S. Behera
SUMANTA Digitally signed by
SUMANTA BEHERA
BEHERA Date: 2023.05.02
10:40:34 +05'30'
