[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Surendra Naik vs State Of Odisha on 13 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.107 of 2004
(In the matter of an application under Section 401 of read
with Section 397 of Cr.P.C.)
Surendra Naik .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha
.... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Advocate
For Opposite Party: Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.03.2026
V. Narasingh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for state.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed
assailing the judgment dated 30.01.2004 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in
Criminal Appeal No.31/10 of 2001, affirming the
order of conviction qua the petitioner dated
29.09.2001 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions
Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.201/33 of 99
under Sections 376 of IPC and imposing a sentence
of rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven
years along with a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default to
undergo R.I. for six months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in
Chaitra 1997, the prosecutrix, aged approximately
17-19 years, visited the pharmacy of the
Petitioner, where he closed the door and
committed forcible sexual intercourse despite her
protest. Thereafter, the Petitioner criminally
intimidated the victim into silence and exploited
the situation to subject her to repeated sexual
abuse, resulting in her pregnancy. Though a
Panchayat meeting was held in the village on this
issue, the accused did not attend the same and a
formal complaint was lodged on 01.10.1997,
leading to the registration of F.I.R. (Exhibit-1).
Consequent to the investigation, the final charge
sheet was filed against the Accused Petitioner
under Section 376 IPC.
3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution
examined eight witnesses of whom P.W.1, the
victim, P.W.2, the mother, P.W, the Doctor and
P.W.8, the I.O, are the material witnesses, and
several documents were marked Exts. 1 to 3/1.
Neither oral nor documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of the accused Petitioner.
4. Considering the evidence and materials on
record, the learned Trial Court convicted the
Petitioner under Section 376 of IPC and directed
him to undergo R.I. for seven years along with
fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default to undergo R.I. for
six months.
5. On appeal being preferred, such conviction
and sentence were upheld, denying the plea of
false implication. Being aggrieved, the present
revision has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that both the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court committed a grave error in
the appreciation of evidence, particularly that of
P.W.1--the victim.
It is further submitted that admitted delay in
institution of the F.I.R was not taken into account
and that the Courts below lost sight of a very
important facet of the defence, which is clearly
borne out from the facts of the case that the act
was consensual and has subsequently been given
the colour of an offence.
To fortify his submission he relies on the
judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Pratap
Misra v. State of Orissa, (1977) 3 SCC 41 and
State of Maharashtra V. Uddhav, (2002) 23
OCR (SC)-643.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that the appreciation of evidence by
the Courts below is in accordance with the settled
principles of law and does not warrant interference
in the present revision.
8. This Court has closely scrutinized the
evidence of P.W.1 and on such close scrutiny, this
Court is not persuaded to hold that the case relates
to a consensual relationship that later turned sour.
On the contrary, the materials on record indicate
that the act was forcible from the very inception.
In this context, the reliance placed by the
Petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Pratap Misra (supra), is misconceived in
as much as the same is clearly distinguishable
facts.
9. It is hazardous to rely on medical
jurisprudence, as being sought by the Petitioner
referring to the opinion of Taylor in Principles and
Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Volume-II, page
64, which has been quoted in paragraph 9 of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Pratap Misra
(supra).
10. It is a settled position of law that the medical
jurisprudence and the principles stated therein to
be tested in the given facts of the present case and
the reference to the Apex Court to such medical
jurisprudence has to be appreciated in the given
facts of the said case as noted above.
11. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, the facts were succinctly stated
by the Apex Court after quoting the opinion of
Taylor in his book referred to hereinabove. The
same reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
9.......Although according to the
prosecutrix, three persons raped her
with great force and violence resulting
in great pain to her and her breasts
becoming swollen and red and other
injuries, yet when she was examined
by the Doctor (PW 8) only after 16 to
17 hours of the occurrence, the Doctor
found no marks of injuries on her body
at all.......
xxx xxx xxx"
12. The reliance on the Judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Uddhav (supra) is
distinguishable on facts, since the case of the
prosecution in the said case had alleged that prior
to the incident, the prosecutrix as well as the
accused had developed friendly intimacy.
13. In the given facts of the present case, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of
the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court that, emboldened by the non-reporting of
the incident, the Petitioner kept a sexual
relationship with the prosecutrix, and during the
course of the same there was also a promise to
marry, but that does not in any way vitiate the
offence as committed, and the commission of such
offence is also borne out from the statements of
the independent witnesses on record.
14. Hence, in the considered view of this Court,
there is no perversity in the appreciation of
evidence by the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court so as to warrant
interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction
of this Court.
15. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence
recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by
the learned Appellate Court do not merit
interference.
16. The Petitioner is directed to surrender before
the learned Trial Court to undergo the sentence as
imposed.
17. The Criminal Revision along with I.As, if any,
stand disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 13th March , 2026/ Soumya
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Mar-2026 18:07:42
