Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA Nos.748 and 834 of 2023 (In the matters of appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). (CRLA No.748 of 2023) Janapriya Si …. Appellant (s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. D.R. Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC (CRLA No.834 of 2023) Tuni Dhal …. Appellant (s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Appellant (s) : Sk. Zafarulla, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -15.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above- mentioned appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat CRLA No.748 of 2023 as the leading case for proper adjudication of these matters. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 2 2. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada in connection with Chandua P.S. Case No.30 dated 14.03.2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.310 of 2016, subsequently converted into S.T. Case No.137 of 2017. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant alleged that his deaf and dumb daughter aged about 21 years used to go to the house of the appellant-Tuni Dhal for preparation of sobai grass rope and it is alleged that at the instigation of the appellant-Tuni Dhal, co-accused Janapriya Si had physical relationship with the victim. After seven months, when the victim showed signs of pregnancy, the informant came to know about the same and a village meeting was convened. Since the main accused did not turn up in the meeting, the matter was reported to his family members, who being armed with deadly weapons threatened the informant, whereafter the FIR came to be lodged. 4. On the basis of the written FIR lodged on 14.03.2016, Chandua P.S. Case No.30 of 2016 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(l)/114/294/506/34 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No.310 of 2016, which subsequently came to be registered as S.T. Case No.137 of 2017. 5. During course of investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. through interpreter and she was also medically examined. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 3 6. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded through interpreter K.C. Dash. Biological samples and wearing clothes of the victim were seized. Accused-Tuni Dhal was arrested on 04.09.2016 and accused-Janapriya Si was arrested on 28.03.2017. A test identification parade was conducted by the learned S.D.J.M., wherein the accused persons were identified by the victim. 7. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(l), 294 and 506 IPC, and against appellant-Tuni Dhal under Section 376(2)(l)/109 IPC. 8. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed and ultimately transferred to the court of the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada for trial. 9. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned court below by judgment dated 30.06.2023 convicted accused-Janapriya Si under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 15 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. Appellant-Tuni Dhal was convicted under Sections 376(2)(l)/109 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada in S.T. Case No.137 of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 4 2017 arising out of Chandua P.S. Case No.30 dated 14.03.2016, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeals. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 11. Learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The appellants submitted that the foundation of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the presumption of innocence and the burden lies squarely upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further submitted that the said principle has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh1, wherein it has been held that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. According to the appellants, the evidence led by the prosecution falls far short of the aforesaid settled standard. ii. The appellants submitted that the prosecution case suffers from unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. According to the appellants, the allegations pertain to acts alleged to have continued over a considerable period, yet the complaint came to be lodged after substantial delay without any convincing explanation. It was contended that such delay creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the allegations and opens the possibility of embellishment and afterthought. In support of such contention, 1 (1973) 2 SCC 808. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 5 reliance was placed upon Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu2, wherein it has been held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR affords scope for fabrication. iii. The appellants further submitted that a critical aspect of the present case is that the prosecutrix is a hearing and speech impaired individual and her statements were recorded through an interpreter. It was contended that though such evidence is admissible, the same is required to be subjected to greater scrutiny. According to the appellants, the possibility of misinterpretation, misunderstanding or tutoring cannot be ruled out, particularly when the prosecution has failed to establish the reliability and neutrality of the interpreter. It was further submitted that in such circumstances, corroboration becomes necessary. In support of such contention, reliance was placed upon State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh3 , wherein it has been observed that where testimony is not wholly reliable, it requires corroboration by independent evidence. iv. The appellants further submitted that in the present case, there is complete absence of independent corroboration. According to the appellants, no eyewitness has supported the prosecution version and the entire case hinges upon the interpreted testimony of the victim. Reliance was placed upon Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, wherein it has been held that conviction can be based on the sole 2 1972 3 SCC 393. 3 2012 5 SCC 789. 4 2012 (8) SCC 21. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 6 testimony of a witness only if the same is of “sterling quality”. It was contended that the evidence in the present case does not meet such stringent standard. v. The appellants further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce the most crucial scientific evidence, namely, the DNA report. According to the appellants, the record itself indicates that investigation was kept pending for DNA examination of the accused, the victim and the child allegedly born out of the incident, however, no such report has been brought on record. It was contended that such omission strikes at the root of the prosecution case. In support of such contention, reliance was placed upon Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana5, wherein it has been held that failure to produce DNA evidence, when available, constitutes a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. vi. The appellants further submitted that the medical evidence on record does not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellants. It was contended that it is settled law that medical evidence alone cannot prove the charge of rape in the absence of reliable and cogent testimony. In support of such contention, reliance was placed upon Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, wherein it has been held that medical evidence is merely corroborative in nature and cannot substitute substantive evidence. 5 2011 (7) SCC 130. 6 2007 (12) SCC 57. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 7 vii. The appellants further submitted that the investigation conducted in the present case suffers from serious deficiencies. According to the appellants, although the Investigating Officer examined witnesses and prepared the spot map, no credible material evidence has been collected to conclusively link the appellants with the alleged offence. It was contended that the chain of circumstances is incomplete and does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. In support of such contention, reliance was placed upon Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra7, wherein it has been held that the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused and any missing link must enure to the benefit of the accused. viii. The appellants further submitted that the defence of the appellants has been one of complete denial and false implication. According to the appellants, in light of the inconsistencies in the prosecution case, absence of corroborative evidence, unexplained delay and non- production of scientific evidence, the defence version appears plausible. It was contended that it is a settled principle of law that when reasonable doubt arises, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. In support of such contention, reliance was placed upon Vijayee Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh8. ix. The appellants further submitted that P.W.3, in paragraph-4 of his cross-examination, admitted that being an illiterate person, he was 7 1985 SCR (1) 88. 8 (1990) 3 SCC 190 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 8 unaware of the contents of the FIR and did not know the name and address of the scribe thereof. According to the appellants, the FIR was prepared by village persons and merely submitted by the informant before the police station. It was contended that the authorship of the FIR has not been established by the prosecution and the allegations made therein also become doubtful. x. The appellants further submitted that they have remained in custody for a substantial period and, therefore, on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds, the sentence may be reduced suitably. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State made the following submissions in support of the prosecution case: i. The victim (P.W.14) is a deaf and dumb and mentally disabled woman, which stands established through seizure of disability certificate, medical evidence of P.W.12 and evidence of the Investigating Officer- P.W.15. It was further submitted that the victim consistently stated that while she was preparing rope in the house of the present appellant- Tuni Dhal, the said appellant called co-convict appellant-Janapriya Si and he committed rape upon her repeatedly over a period of six days. ii. The respondent-State further submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. through interpreter and also under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate through qualified interpreter. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 9 iii. The respondent-State further submitted that the learned trial court rightly held that the evidence of the victim inspires full confidence and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances. iv. It was further submitted that the test identification parade was validly conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate with assistance of interpreter and the victim correctly identified accused-Janapriya Si. According to the respondent-State, no illegality has been shown in conduct of the T.I. parade. v. It was asserted that the medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case inasmuch as the victim was found pregnant for about 28 weeks by P.W.12 and such pregnancy lends support to the prosecution case of repeated sexual assault. It was further submitted that absence of fresh injury is immaterial considering delay in detection, repeated intercourse and vulnerable condition of the victim. vi. The respondent-State further submitted that abetment by appellant- Tuni Dhal stands clearly established as the appellant called the main accused, allowed her house to be used as the place of offence and facilitated repeated sexual assault. According to the respondent-State, such conduct squarely falls within the ambit of “intentional aid” under Section 107 IPC and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(l)/109 IPC. vii. The respondent-State further submitted that Section 119 of the Evidence Act permits examination of a witness unable to speak Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 10 through signs and interpreter and the interpreters examined as P.Ws.13 and 17 have not caused any prejudice to the defence. viii. The respondent-State further submitted that the family initially suspected tumour and pregnancy was detected at the hospital, whereafter village meeting was convened and efforts were made for settlement. It was contended that delay in lodging the FIR is natural and fully explained in cases of sexual offence, particularly involving a disabled victim. ix. The respondent-State further submitted that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if the same is trustworthy and corroboration is not mandatory. According to the respondent- State, the testimony of the victim is consistent, natural and supported by medical evidence as well as conduct of the accused persons. x. The respondent-State further submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed upon a deaf, dumb and mentally disabled woman, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court is justified and not excessive. IV. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED AD HOC ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC) UNDER THE POCSO ACT, BARIPADA: 13. The learned Ad hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada framed charges against accused-Janapriya Si under Section 376(2)(l) IPC for committing rape upon the victim, a deaf and dumb girl, against accused persons Jagabandhu Si, Subhasini Si and Geetanjali Si under Sections 294/506 IPC and against accused-Tuni Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 11 Dhal under Sections 376(2)(l)/109 IPC for abetting accused-Janapriya Si in committing rape upon the victim. 14. 14. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned court below observed that though P.Ws.2, 5 and 8 had deposed regarding detection of pregnancy of the victim and convening of village meeting, their evidence was not helpful to the prosecution as they had not stated certain facts before the police and were relatives of the informant. 15. The learned court below further observed that the seizure of biological samples and wearing apparels of the accused and the victim were necessary for chemical examination, however, the chemical examination report was against the prosecution case. The learned court below further observed that since seizure of the aforesaid articles was made after 7/8 months of the incident, non-finding of any clue in the chemical examination report was not fatal to the prosecution case. 16. The learned court below further observed that the disability certificate and ultra sonography report seized vide Ext.6 revealed that the victim was a deaf, dumb and mentally disabled person. 17. The learned court below further observed that though P.W.3 had deposed that the victim disclosed the name of the culprit and village in writing before the village gentries and that the written paper had been submitted before the police, the said written paper was not available on record and no other witness had corroborated the same and, therefore, such evidence of P.W.3 could not be accepted. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 12 18. The learned court below further observed that P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 had stated that after being identified by the victim, accused-Tuni Dhal was called to the meeting and from her the villagers ascertained that one person of village Kanimahuli had made the victim pregnant and accused-Tuni Dhal disclosed the name of accused-Janapriya Si before the village gentries/elders. 19. The learned court below further observed that the victim-P.W.14 stated that while she was preparing rope in the house of accused-Tuni Dhal, accused-Tuni Dhal called accused-Janapriya Si by phone and thereafter accused-Janapriya Si committed rape upon her repeatedly over a period of six days during evening hours. The learned court below further observed that the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and her evidence before the court were consistent and that she had specifically clarified in cross-examination that she had resisted accused-Janapriya Si when he committed rape upon her. 20. The learned court below further observed that P.W.18, the then learned S.D.J.M., Baripada, conducted the T.I. parade after observing legal formalities with assistance of interpreter and the victim correctly identified accused-Janapriya Si. 21. The learned court below further observed that P.W.12, who examined the victim, found her pregnant for about 28 weeks and P.W.16, who examined accused-Janapriya Si, found him capable of performing sexual intercourse though nothing suggestive of recent or forcible sexual intercourse was found. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 13 22. Upon appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14 and 18, the learned court below held that accused-Janapriya Si committed rape upon the victim, a deaf, dumb and mentally disabled lady and accused- Tuni Dhal abetted him in committing the offence. The learned court below further held that accused persons Jagabandhu Si, Subhasini Si and Geetanjali @ Gayatri Si were not guilty of the offences under Sections 294/506/34 IPC and accordingly acquitted them. 23. The learned court below further observed that all along the help of qualified interpreters had been taken in recording the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as at the time of recording of evidence before the court and while conducting the T.I. parade and accordingly held that the decision relied upon by the defence was not applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. The learned court below further observed that though prayer had been made for DNA test of accused-Janapriya Si, the victim and the newly born child, the learned S.D.J.M. did not grant permission for DNA profiling and further observed that when the prosecution had otherwise established the offence and the paternity of the child, accused-Janapriya Si did not opt for DNA profiling. 25. Upon hearing the parties on the question of sentence and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, its impact on society and the precarious condition of the victim, the learned court below sentenced accused-Janapriya Si and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 14 accused-Tuni Dhal to undergo R.I. for 15 years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months each. 26. The learned court below further directed payment of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the victim, including compensation towards rape, pregnancy, maintenance of the child and rehabilitation. V. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 27. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 28. The primary issue which arises for consideration in the present appeals is whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against accused-Janapriya Si and appellant-Tuni Dhal beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence available on record. 29. The appellants contended that the prosecution case suffers from unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, absence of independent corroboration, non-production of DNA report and insufficiency of evidence regarding abetment against appellant-Tuni Dhal. It was further contended that since the victim is a deaf, dumb and mentally disabled woman and her evidence was recorded through interpreters, the same requires careful scrutiny and close evaluation. 30. In so far as the evidentiary value of the testimony of a deaf and dumb witness is concerned, the law is well settled. In Darshan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that a deaf and dumb person is a competent witness and where such witness is unable to read and write, his or her evidence may be recorded in sign language with the aid of an Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 15 interpreter. It was further held that such evidence is admissible under Section 119 of the Evidence Act. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “29. To sum up, a deaf and dumb person is a competent witness. If in the opinion of the court, oath can be administered to him/her, it should be so done. Such a witness, if able to read and write, it is desirable to record his statement giving him questions in writing and seeking answers in writing. In case the witness is not able to read and write, his statement can be recorded in sign language with the aid of interpreter, if found necessary. In case the interpreter is provided, he should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he should be administered oath.” 31. Further, since the conviction in the present case substantially rests upon the testimony of the victim, the evidentiary value and reliability of such testimony assumes significance. In this regard, reference may be made to Rai Sandeep (supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary witness only when such testimony is found to be wholly reliable and of sterling quality. It was observed: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 16 the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 32. In the present case, it appears from the evidence on record that the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded through interpreter and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the learned Magistrate through interpreter. The evidence of the victim before the learned court below as well as the T.I. parade were also conducted with the assistance of interpreters. P.Ws.13 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 17 and 17, who acted as interpreters, have been examined and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. 33. Upon examination of the evidence of P.W.14, this Court finds that the same remains consistent regarding the role attributed to accused- Janapriya Si as well as appellant-Tuni Dhal. The victim stated that while she was preparing rope in the house of appellant-Tuni Dhal, appellant-Tuni Dhal called accused-Janapriya Si, who thereafter committed rape upon her repeatedly over a period of six days. The said version finds place in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition before the learned court below. 34. The evidence of the victim further finds corroboration from the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances. P.W.12, who examined the victim, found her pregnant for about 28 weeks. Ext.6 and the ultra sonography report further reveal that the victim was a deaf, dumb and mentally disabled woman. P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 have also supported the prosecution case regarding detection of pregnancy and convening of the village meeting. The surrounding circumstances emerging from the evidence on record also lend assurance to the version of the victim. 35. So far as the contention regarding delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, it appears from the evidence on record that initially the family members of the victim suspected tumour and only after medical examination her pregnancy was detected. The evidence further reveals that thereafter a village meeting was convened and attempts were Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 18 made to resolve the matter. In such facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. 36. The contention regarding non-production of DNA report also does not advance the case of the appellants. It appears from the record that though prayer had been made for DNA profiling, the same was not carried out during investigation. Mere absence of DNA report, in the facts of the present case, cannot by itself be held fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when there is otherwise cogent oral and medical evidence available on record. 37. So far as appellant-Tuni Dhal is concerned, the evidence of the victim specifically indicates that appellant-Tuni Dhal called accused-Janapriya Si to the house where the victim was present and facilitated commission of the offence by accused-Janapriya Si. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Ad hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada held that appellant-Tuni Dhal abetted accused-Janapriya Si in commission of the offence and this Court finds no infirmity in the said finding. 38. The learned court below has also relied upon the evidence relating to the T.I. parade conducted by P.W.18, the then learned S.D.J.M., Baripada, wherein the victim correctly identified accused-Janapriya Si with the assistance of interpreter. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 19 39. Minor discrepancies or omissions, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case, cannot be treated as fatal when the substantive evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. 40. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against accused-Janapriya Si and appellant-Tuni Dhal beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada do not warrant interference by this Court. 41. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned court below. VI. CONCLUSION: 42. Accordingly, both the criminal appeals being devoid of merit stand dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, Baripada in S.T. Case No.137 of 2017 are hereby affirmed. 43. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, 2026/-