Orissa High Court
) Biswanath Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 19 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.483 of 2025
1) Biswanath Sahoo ..... Appellants
2) Sanju@sanjukta@sanjulata Ghadei Represented By Adv.
- Arijeet Mishra, S.k.
Jena, S.biswal,
R.mahato
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. B.K.Sahu, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.11.2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned
counsel for the State.
3. The present I.A. application has been filed under Section 389
of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer for suspension of sentence/grant of bail
to the accused-Appellants.
4. The present appeal has been filed at the instance of the
convict-Appellants challenging judgment dated 21.03.2025 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) , Kendrapara in S.T.
Case No.27 of 2017 which arises out of Pattamundai P.S. Case
No.244 of 2016 which was initially registered for commission of an
offence under Sections 376/ 384/ 506/ 34 of I.P.C. By virtue of the
impugned judgment, the learned trial court has found the Appellants
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376/ 506 of I.P.C. and
they has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset contended
that there are several latches in the judgment of the trial court. He
further contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish
its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the
Appellants while elaborating the aforesaid allegation contended
before this Court that on the basis of the statement of the victim the
Appellants have been convicted in this case. He further contended
that the victim had earlier refused to be medically examined. As
such, there is no medical evidence available to support the case of
the prosecution. It was also contended that most of the witnesses
examined from the side of the prosecution have turned hostile except
P.W. Nos.10 and 12. It is also contended that P.W. No.10 is the eye-
witness of the occurrence.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants further, while assailing the
evidence of the victim, contended that the victim and the convict
were known to each other prior to the occurrence. He further
contended that it appears that they had a love relationship which
turned into a physical relationship later on. In the aforesaid factual
backdrop learned counsel for the convict-Appellants contended that
the possibility of false implication in present case cannot be ruled
out. Moreover, in the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was not correct
to convict the Appellants only on the basis of the statement of the
victim without any independent corroboration from any of the
witnesses and in the absence of any medical evidence in support of
the evidence of the victim. He further contended that Appellants are
languishing in custody for about 16 months. On such ground,
learned counsel for the convict-Appellants contended that the
Appellants be released on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State on the other hand
objected to the release of the Appellants on bail has suspending the
sentence imposed on the convict-Appellants. Learned counsel for the
State supported the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2025 convicting
the accused-Appellants for the alleged crime, including the sentence.
In course of her argument learned counsel for the State contended
that the sole testimony of the victim is good enough to sustain a
conviction under the alleged sections. Therefore, the learned trial
court has not committed any illegality in convicting the Appellants,
even though there are no corroborative evidence supporting the
statement of the victim as has been recorded by the learned trial
court. She further submitted that taking into consideration the
seriousness and gravity of the offence, the Appellants should not be
enlarged on bail and the sentence should not be suspended. On such
ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the application
filed by the Appellants under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to
be rejected.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the impugned
judgment dated 21.03.2025 as well as the evidence on record, further
on a close scrutiny of the materials, this Court observes that the
learned trial court on the basis of the statement of the victim, has
found the Appellants guilty and convicted them vide judgment dated
21.03.2025. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that
most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and that the
victim has denied her medical examination. It is also a fact that the
victim and the convict-Appellants were known to each other. In the
aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that Appellants
has a very good ground to be considered in the pending appeal. In
view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to release the
Appellants on bail subject to such terms and conditions as would be
deemed just and proper by the learned trial court.
9. Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed.
10. Heard.
11. As an interim measure the realization of fine amount awarded
by the Court below shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
