[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Afjal Raja @ Kartik vs State Of Odisha on 23 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.36 of 2019
Afjal Raja @ Kartik .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA
Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate (for informant)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 23.02.2026
(Hybrid mode)
06. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the informant and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
3. Along with the present appellant, four other accused
persons were put to trial in Special G.R. Case No.36 of 2018. Vide
a common judgment dated 02.06.2018, the learned 2 nd Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur convicted
the present appellant for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) of
I.P.C. and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act whereas the other
accused persons, namely, Tinu Sahu, Hadu Panchbiha @ Kaira,
Abhilash Panchbiha @ Siba and Ashirbad Behera have been
convicted for the offence under Section 376(DA) of I.P.C. and
Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment
for the reminder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand). Similarly, the co-accused persons have
also been visited with the same sentence.
4. The appellant-Afjal Raja @ Kartika is in custody since
04.05.2018. Hence, he has moved this application seeking
suspension of sentence pending appeal. The co-accused persons
applied for grant of bail by filing application I.A. No.1212 of 2021
in CRLA No.454 of 2018. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 17.08.2023 admitted them to bail by allowing the
application. While enlarging the co-accused persons on bail
pending the appeal, the coordinate Bench has considered every
aspects of the matter, which largely reflects in paragraphs-4 and 5
of the said order dated 17.08.2023. For convenience of ready
reference, paragraphs-4 and 5 are reproduced hereunder:-
"4. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the move
submits that delay of two days in disclosing the names
of these Appellants in having the involvement in
commission of rape upon the victim is not of that
significance when the fact remains that the victim was
under suffering mental trauma which can be seen
from the admitted position that she committed suicide
before the trial. He further submits that the victim
having given her submission before the Magistrate,
recorded under section-164 of the Cr.P.C. and she
having not been examined for her death; the trial
Court's finding as against these Appellants holding
them guilty for commission of offence under section-
376(DA), of the IPC on the basis of the evidence of
her parents and the Investigating Officers has to
sustain.
5. Taking into account the submissions made and on
going through the materials on record, further
keeping in view the surrounding circumstances
including the fact that these Appellants (Tinu Sahu,
Hadu Panchbiha @ Kaira, Abhilash Panchbiha @
Siba and Ashirbad Behera) have not misused the
liberty while on parole; we are inclined to direct that
the further execution of sentence imposed upon these
Appellants- Tinu Sahu, Hadu Panchbiha @ Kaira,
Abhilash Panchbiha @ Siba and Ashirbad Behera in
Special G.R. Case No.36 of 2018 by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special
Court), Sambalpur shall remain suspended till
disposal of this Appeal.
Accordingly, it is directed that these
Appellants- Tinu Sahu, Hadu Panchbiha @ Kaira,
Abhilash Panchbiha @ Siba and Ashirbad Behera be
released on bail pending this Appeal on such terms
and conditions as deemed just and proper by the
Trial Court with further conditions that they shall
positively surrender before the Trial Court as and
when required, shall appear before the Inspector-in-
Charge of concerned Police Station once in every
month, i.e. on last Monday in between 10 am to 2 pm;
and shall not indulge themselves in any criminal
activity"
5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant primarily
emphasized his argument on the ground of parity. Apart from that,
he has also relied upon the testimony of two doctors i.e. P.W.13
and P.W.16 to create doubt in the prosecution version.
The incident had taken place on 02.05.2018 whereas the
P.W.16 examined the victim on 04.05.2018. He has opined as
under:-
"On 4.5.2018 I was M.O. in DHH, Sambalpur. On
that day on police requisition I examined one Puja
Sahani and found no bodily injury on her persons
suggesting forcible sexual intercourse, no physical
clue was found on her clothing suggesting any sexual
offence, there was no sign and symptom of recent
sexual intercourse from her genital examination, no
foreign substance was found in her-vaginal swab, her
blood group-was 'B' positive and her age was
between 12 to 14 years and there was no sign and
symptom of recent sexual intercourse. I collected her
sample pubic hair and sealed it in an envelope and
handed it over to the accompanied lady police
constable. This Ext.18 containing nine sheets is my
report and these Exts.18/1 and 18/2 are my signature
in it.
2. The word recent sexual intercourse means, sexual
intercourse within 0 to 72 hours from the time prior
to medical examination."
Similarly, P.W.13 examined the present appellant on
04.05.2018, inter alia, deposing that Afjal Raja @ Kartika is found
to be capable of having sexual intercourse and he was wearing the
same clothes which he was wearing on 02.05.2018 and the cloth
was given to the police. He further deposed that he did not find any
bodily injury suggesting forcible sexual intercourse. He has also
not found any sign and symptom of recent sexual intercourse.
6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the
evidence of P.W.18, the informant and the mother of the victim
and P.W.19, the father of the victim. The learned trial Court has
primarily relied upon the testimony of the parents of the victim and
convicted the appellant. He further submitted that in the present
case, the victim has not been examined as during the pendency of
the trial, she has expired.
7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State has vehemently opposed the bail plea advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that on
08.05.2018, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded, which has been exhibited as Ext.34. He has
taken us to the said statement, the victim has stated as under:-
"Kartika, the present appellant had called her to the
school. When I went to the school, she started talking
to me and forcibly had sexual intercourse with me
despite my unwillingness. Thereafter, he left from the
school. Out of scared, I remained in the school for
some time. After half an hour, I came out from the
school and started going towards by-pass chhak.
There, I sat. Siba and Ashribad came and asked me to
accompany them so that they can drop in the house.
They instead of taking me to our house took a
different place. First Siba forcibly kept physical
relationship with me and after two minutes Ashribad
had sexual intercourse with me. Thereafter, they left
me near Tata Motors Office. There I sat for two
hours. Hadu and Prakash took me in a vehicle saying
that they will drop me in the house but they had taken
me near a pond. Tinu was already there. Hadu and
Prakash were standing side by side. Tinu had sexual
intercourse with me. Hadu and Prakash took me
towards RMC. There, Hadu had sexual intercourse
with me. Thereafter, they left me near by-pass and
threatened me not to tell either to the family members
or to the police. If she informs the police, they
threatened that her brother and sister will face the
same situation. Therefore, I did not tell anyone in my
house." (translated in English)
8. Perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C., makes it clear that the present appellant has not
participated in the offence under Section 376(DA) of I.P.C. He had
no clue regarding the subsequent event. He has only committed the
crime at the first instance by calling the victim to the school and
contacted physical relationship. This version of the victim is not
finding support from the medical evidence. It is further important
to mention that the incident took place on 02.05.2018 whereas the
victim was medically examined on 04.05.2018. After four days i.e.
on 08.05.2018, the statement has been recorded.
9. Mr. Panda, learned counsel has also taken us to Ext.18 i.e.
the clinical medical examination report of the victim conducted on
03.05.2018. He has pointed out the relevant part of the said
document besides the brief history noted in the report, which reads
as under:-
"On dtd.2.5.18 at 6.20 p.m. the victim minor went to
Sason School Verendah after invited by one Afjal Raja
@ Kartika. There they both stayed for 10-15 minutes
and gossiped, then Afjal Raja asked for sex. She denied
but without her consent Afjal Raja forcefully made
sexual intercourse with her. At that time, her aunty
who stayed in the rented house near to her house saw
them in a distance. On seeing Afjal Raja fled away
from the spot. She also tried to escape but she did not
come out after seeing her elder sister and afraid of her
father. During the course of investigation, it is
ascertained that on re-examination of the victim, she
stated that after Afjal Raja fled away from the spot, she
left towards Hatapada, Sason and after that Siba, Tinu,
Ashirbad, Hadu committed rape with the victim against
her will in different places and minor Prakash Behera
assisted them."
10. Mr. Panda, learned counsel stated that the narration of the
incident as mentioned in Ext.18, which was recorded immediately
after the incident, is different from the incident narrated by the
victim in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Apart from
that, he has also pointed out various contradictions in the
prosecution evidence.
11. Regard being had to the period of judicial custody of the
appellant and the fact that all the co-accused have already admitted
to bail, and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in
the near future, we are inclined to release the appellants on bail.
12. Let the appellant be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with
one local solvent surety, who must be a family member for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, subject to the
condition that while on bail the appellant shall not indulge in any
criminal activities in any manner and any other conditions to be
imposed by the learned trial Court deem fit and proper.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of interim bail.
13. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
Signature
Swarna Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Feb-2026 17:24:37
