Puduru@ Padmalochan Mohanta vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 9445 Ori

Orissa High Court

Puduru@ Padmalochan Mohanta vs State Of Odisha on 28 October, 2025

         THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRA No.86 of 2002

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

Puduru@ Padmalochan Mohanta          .......                 Appellant

                               -Versus-

State of Odisha                      .......              Respondent

For the Appellant : Ms. Rakhi Mishra, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the

judgment and order dated 26th April, 2002 passed by the learned Adhoc

Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada, Mayurbhanj in Sessions Trial Case No.8/31 of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No.566 of

2001, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the

I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years

and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six months.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 2002. When the matter

was called for hearing consistently, none appeared for the appellant.

Therefore, on 19.08.2025, this Court requested Ms. Rakhi Mishra,

learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus

Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire

record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records

appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Mishra.

3. Heard Ms. Rakhi Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant

and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate

for the State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.06.2001 at about 10.00

A.M., the victim (P.W.1), a minor girl of about 12 years, had gone to

Betnoti weekly market along with her mother (P.W.5), P.W.2 and P.W.6

for purchase of certain articles. When they were returning home in the

evening, it rained and while they waited, the appellant approached them

and offered to give the victim a lift on his bicycle. With the consent of

the victim's mother, the accused took the victim on his bicycle, and

allegedly inside Phuljhari jungle at about 8.00 P.M., the appellant

forcibly committed sexual assault on her against her will and threatened

her not to disclose the matter to anyone.

5. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother about 3 to 4 days

later. Thereafter, her father (P.W.3) was informed, who accompanied her

to the police station, where she orally reported the matter. The police

reduced the oral report into writing, registered the case, and conducted

investigation, including seizure of wearing apparels, school admission

register, and medical examination of both the victim and the accused.

The appellant was thereafter charge-sheeted under Section 376 of I.P.C.

6. The learned trial Court relied mainly on the testimony of the

victim corroborated by her parents and other witnesses, and upon the age

determination evidence, which showed the victim to be between 13 and

14 years at the time of occurrence. Though the medical evidence did not

find signs of recent sexual intercourse, the learned trial Court held that

absence of external injuries or semen does not dislodge the consistent

testimony of the victim. The court convicted the appellant under Section

376 I.P.C.The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted

herein below for ready reference:-

"xxx xxx xxx In the case of State Vrs. Angom Nabi Sing reported in 1963 (2) Crl.L.J. page 715 there was no injury on the private part and no semen was detected in the clothes or private parts. It was held that the same did not prove that there was no rape. In the case of Adam Tirky Vrs. State reported in 1993(1) O.L.R. page 266 it was held by Honourable Court that -

"Absence of semen strains or spermotozoa and absence of injury on private part of the victim are no consequence. These aspect do not negative the offence of rape."

In the case of Rafique Vrs. State (U.P.) reported in A.I.R., 1981 Supreme Court page 559 it was held by the Apex Court that -

"Absence of mark of injury on victim is not fatal in each case."

On the face of the principles of the aforesaid decisions I am of the view that there is no reason to discard the sworn testimony of P.W.1 and merely for the negative report of the Doctor the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown out. Hence the

contention raised by the learned defence counsel must fail. Further it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the delay in lodging F.I.R. at the P.S. had not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. To the above submission it is to be stated that the victim had clearly stated in the Court that the accused had threatened her on the way not to disclose the incident to anybody, otherwise he will kill her and P.W.1 disclosed regarding the incident to her mother after 2 to 3 days after the occurrence and thereafter the matter was orally report at the P.S. In that view practically there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Admittedly the accused is the relation of the victim."

7. Ms. Mishra, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant

contended that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is

unsustainable in law and on facts, primarily on the ground that the

medical examination of the victim did not reveal any external or internal

injuries on her body or private parts, which according to him casts

serious doubt on the prosecution version of forcible sexual assault.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further relied on several

judicial pronouncements while advancing her submissions regarding the

quantum of sentence, emphasizing that the Courts have, in comparable

circumstances, exercised discretion to impose lesser punishment upon

recording adequate reasons.

8. Mr. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

the State, supported the judgment of conviction and sentence, contending

that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent, trustworthy, and duly

corroborated by surrounding circumstances, and there is no reason to

disbelieve her evidence merely because of the absence of medical

injuries. It was further submitted that in cases of rape, particularly when

the victim is a minor, lack of injuries or absence of signs of recent

intercourse in the medical report cannot, by itself, be treated as

conclusive proof that the offence was not committed.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the

learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the learned counsel for the

State and have gone through the records of the case, including the

depositions of the witnesses, the medical evidence and the documents

produced.

10. In the present case, the testimony of the victim (P.W.1) is clear

and categorical that the appellant forcibly subjected her to sexual assault

inside the jungle and threatened her with dire consequences. She

disclosed the occurrence to her mother within a reasonable time, and

subsequently to her father, after which the report was lodged. Her

testimony is fully supported by P.W.2, P.W.5 (mother), and P.W.3

(father). The minor inconsistencies pointed out by the defence do not

shake the core of her deposition.

11. It is true that the medical examination of the victim, as deposed by

P.W.11, did not reveal any injuries on her body or her private parts. The

report also indicated no recent signs of forcible sexual intercourse.

However, the prosecutrix, P.W.1, had very specifically deposed that the

appellant pulled her down inside the Phuljhari forest, tried to penetrate

her, but could not do so fully, yet inserted partially and discharged

thereafter. In such a circumstance, the absence of bodily injuries or

visible marks on the private parts of the victim cannot be held

conclusive, particularly when the victim is a minor and is not expected to

resist with the same degree of force as that of an adult woman. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that lack of injuries is

not fatal to the prosecution case in rape matters. In State of Punjab v.

Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, it was categorically

observed that conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix

if it is inspiring confidence. The Honorable Supreme Court held thus:

"The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury."

12. As regards the contention of delay in lodging of the F.I.R., this

Court does not find any substance in the defence plea. The victim was a

helpless minor girl of tender age, who was threatened by the accused not

to disclose the incident to anyone. She disclosed the matter to her mother

after two to three days, which is quite natural. Delay in lodging F.I.R. in

cases of sexual assault, especially where the accused is related to the

victim, cannot be treated with the same yardstick as in other criminal

cases. The delay in the present case, in fact, lends assurance to the

testimony of the prosecutrix as it reflects the time taken to muster

courage to speak out about the incident to her parents.

13. On the whole, the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent,

natural, and free from material contradictions. It finds corroboration

from the testimony of her mother (P.W.5) and father (P.W.3), and also

receives support from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, who had

accompanied her to the market. The school admission register, as seized

by the I.O. and the ossification test established that the victim was aged

about 12-13 years at the relevant time. Thus, even otherwise, the consent

of the victim, if any, would be immaterial in the case of a minor. The

medical opinion that the victim was within 13-14 years of age

strengthens the prosecution case regarding her minority.

14. Having considered the entire factual matrix and the submissions

of the learned Amicus Curiae, this Court finds no infirmity in the

conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 376 of the

I.P.C. The testimony of the prosecutrix, when read conjointly with the

supporting statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 5, and 6, establishes beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the act of sexual assault

upon the victim, who was a minor at the relevant time.

15. However, considering the proviso to Section 376 of I.P.C., which

empowers the Court to impose a sentence of less than seven years for

adequate and special reasons, and bearing in mind the mitigating

circumstances of the case, this Court finds substance in the plea

advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae for reduction of sentence. Ms.

Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant, relied on Ramhit vs. The

State of M.P. in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 104 of 2000, where the

Court had reduced the substantive sentence under similar circumstances,

where the incident was decades old and the appellant had no prior

criminal history. The Court held that the long passage of time, coupled

with the appellant's reformed conduct and absence of subsequent

offence, constituted adequate reasons to award a term of imprisonment

less than the statutory minimum. The Court held thus: -

"26. In view of the aforesaid proviso, the Court has the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than seven years for adequate reasons. Now, the question arises as to whether in this case any adequate reason is visible in favour of appellant or not. Having gone to the factual scenario of the present case, the following factors can be taken into account:-

(i) The incident was happened on 23.02.1997 i.e. 27 years ago.

(ii) The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on 12.01.2000, as such, this appeal is pending before this Court for 24 years.

(iii) The age of the appellant is approximately 54 years.

(iv) There is no evidence regarding criminal antecedents against the appellant available on record.

27. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that there is adequate reason in favour of appellant to award the sentence for a term of less than seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. On this aspect, this Court can profitably rely upon the judgment rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghuvir Singh & Ors (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the conviction of three years for the offence of rape in which the incident was 35 years old. This case is also related to the incident which has been happened nearly 27 years old. Hence, the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to some extent."

16. In the present case, several mitigating factors warrant

consideration by this Court. The incident in question took place in June

2001, which is nearly twenty-four years ago. At the time of the

occurrence, the appellant was about twenty-six years of age and is

presently around fifty years old. It is also borne out from the record that

the appellant was in custody from 28.06.2001 to 19.09.2005, when he

was granted bail. As of 19.09.2005 the appellant has already undergone

incarceration for a period of approximately four years and eight months.

Furthermore, there is no material available to suggest that he has any

criminal antecedents. The case pertains to an incident that occurred more

than two decades ago and has remained pending since the year 2002,

which further adds to the hardship suffered by the appellant during the

prolonged pendency of the proceedings.

17. Relying upon the ratio of Ramhit vs. State of M.P. (supra) and

keeping in view the mitigating factors enumerated above, this Court

finds adequate reasons to reduce the substantive sentence. Therefore,

while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of

I.P.C., the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years is modified

to rigorous imprisonment for the period the appellant has already

undergone (i.e., four years and eight months). The fine of Rs.2,000/-

imposed by the learned trial Court is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten

thousand), failing to pay the fine shall entail the appellant to undergo R.I.

for six months. The realised fine amount shall be disbursed to the victim

as compensation as per Section 357 Cr.P.C.

18. With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Appeal

stands partly allowed.

19. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance

rendered by Ms. Rakhi Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae in this case.

Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/-

(Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of

appreciation.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 28th October, 2025/Swarna

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa