Lalit Mohan Harijan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 4 February, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                   CRREV No.213 of 2002

 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 read with
 397 of Cr.P.C.)

 1. Lalit Mohan Harijan                ....
 2. Abala Harijan                               Petitioners
 3. Guru Charan Harijan

                         -versus-

 State of Odisha                       ....   Opposite Party


 For Petitioners          :       Mr. D.K. Mishra, Advocate



 For Opposite Party       :        Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC


      CORAM:
               JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

       DATE OF HEARING and JUDGEMENT: 04.02.2026


V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Assailing the judgment dated 19.02.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2001 confirming the judgment and the order of conviction dated 18.08.2001 passed by the learned C.J.M-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Sessions Trial No.9/8 of 2001, this Criminal Revision has been filed.

3. It is seen that the learned trial court convicted the Petitioner No.1-Lalit Mohan Harijan under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Section 506 IPC and to undergo sentence for 2 years each.

It is apposite to note that the prosecution has not assailed the judgment and imposition of sentence of 5 years under Section 376 IPC against Petitioner No.1.

4. It is apt to note that during pendency of the Criminal Revision before this Court, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are parents of the principal accused Petitioner No.1, passed away and on the basis of the report submitted, by order dated 21.11.2025, the Criminal Revision stood abated against Petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

Thus this Criminal Revision is confined to Petitioner No.1 only.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Mishra that admittedly the Petitioner No.1-accused and the victim (P.W.1) were closely related to each other. The Petitioner No.1-accused is the aunt's son. And, if the tenor of the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into account, the conviction is not warranted since ex facie a consensual relationship has been given the colour of criminality and the learned trial court somehow lost sight of the same and on perverse appreciation of the evidence on record convicted the

Petitioner No.1 under Section 376 IPC. And, the appellate court mechanically affirmed such conviction. Hence, the same may be interfered with.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the judgment and the order of conviction and imposition of sentence and submits that since there is no infirmity in the same, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court perused the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and that of the Doctor (P.W.5).

8. P.W.1 has clearly stated in her deposition that on the pretext of marriage, the accused-Petitioner No.1 lured her to go to the forest, which is close to her house, and committed sexual act. Since she was all along under the bona fide belief that he will marry her, she did not object.

It is stated at the Bar that the area in which the occurrence had taken place being Deogarh and accused-Petitioner No.1 and the victim were not in a prohibited degree of marriage.

She further stated in her deposition that because of repeated sexual act committed by the accused- Petitioner No.1 she got pregnant. She was taken by the parents to the house of the accused and she stayed there for four days. Thereafter the parents of the accused threatened her and drove her out from their house.

Taking into account such submission which was also the stand of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which withstood the cross-examination and combined with the evidence of P.W.5, the doctor, learned trial court arrived at a conclusion of guilt and affirmed by the appellate court.

9. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court is persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the State that there is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court warranting interference and referring to the age of the victim being 16 years, it is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that the defence of the consensual relationship as advanced cannot be taken into account in view of her age. In this context, attention of this Court was also drawn to the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.5).

10. Hence, on a perspicuous analysis of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court warranting interference in this Criminal Revision.

11. The next question arises for consideration as to the quantum of punishment under Section 376 IPC.

12. For better appreciation Section 376 IPC, at the relevant point of time, is extracted hereunder.

"376. Punishment for rape.- (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever--

(a) being a police officer, commits rape- (i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house; or

(iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or

(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

(i) commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or

(j) commits rape, on a women incapable of giving consent; or

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

13. It is apt to note that learned trial court while imposing punishment of 5 years under Section 376 IPC has referred to the consensual relationship between the parties and acquitted Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of principal accused Petitioner No.1, under the said Section 376 IPC.

14. It is seen that at the time of commission of offence, the victim was 16 years old and Petitioner No.1 was 19 years old which is an impressionable age. Considering the relationship and the tenor of the evidence of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered view that taking into account that the

occurrence took place in the year 2000 and almost more than two decades have passed and Petitioner No.1 is on bail and admittedly there is no allegation that he has misused the trust reposed in him directing him to undergo further incarceration will not serve any purpose.

15. Hence, this Court is persuaded to hold that confining the sentence to the period already undergone without interfering with the fine imposed by the learned trial court will sub-serve the ends of justice. In this context, this Court respectfully refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Sharma vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 551.

Ordered accordingly.

The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks hence. On such deposit, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties be discharged. In the event of non- deposit of fine amount the Petitioner No.1 shall be taken into custody to suffer the default sentence as awarded.

16. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Date: 09-Feb-2026 20:59:42 Dated the 04th February, 2026/PKS/Santoshi