pg. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 254 of 2025 (From the judgment of conviction dated 24.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 26.12.2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC, Jajpur in C.T. Sessions Case No.63 of 2024. Aditya Jena @ Govinda & Anr. …. Appellant(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, Adv. -versus- For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-16.01.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Convicts/Appellants, in this CRLA, assail the judgment of conviction dated 24.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 26.12.2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC, Jajpur in CT Sessions Case No.63 of 2024, whereby the Appellants were convicted under Sections 341 and 376D of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 25 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for five years. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case, in essence, is that on 24.11.2023 at about 10:00 A.M., the victim, while proceeding to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 2 house of her maternal uncle at village Bangara, was intercepted by the accused persons. On the pretext of escorting her to her destination, they deceitfully induced her to accompany them, but instead took her near Chhotakidi Mahadev Temple, where she was forcibly confined inside a nearby hume pipe. It is alleged that the accused persons tied her hands and mouth with a napkin and thereafter subjected her to forcible sexual assault, one after the other. The prosecution further alleges that a woman from village Damodarpur, having witnessed the occurrence, raised an alarm, upon which local persons rushed to the spot. Taking advantage of the commotion, accused Govinda fled from the scene, whereas the co-accused Kabi was apprehended by the persons present and was subsequently taken to the house of the victim’s father. However, he too got managed to escape thereafter by pushing the informant. During the course of investigation, the first I.O., P.W 12, visited the spot, prepared the spot map, effected seizure of a yamah motor cycle under Ext.P-2, seizure of the wearing apparel of the accused Govinda @ Adity under Ext. P-10 and his biological substances under Ext.P-11, seizure of wearing apparel of the victim and her biological substances under two separate seizure lists under Ext. P-6 and Ext.P-12, respectively. Then, there was trial and the trial court returned the findings convicting the present Appellants. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the Appellants Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, contended that the prosecution case is riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 3 the witnesses, which go to the root of the matter and render the entire prosecution story unreliable. It was vehemently argued that the evidence on record does not establish the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, in fact, there is no substantive or cogent material connecting them with the commission of the alleged offence. Consequently, it was submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. It was further contended that the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) thereby casting a serious doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case. It was also argued that the initial version of the FIR has been deliberately suppressed, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submitted that material witnesses, particularly the woman (Tikili) who allegedly raised alarm and who first witnessed the occurrence, has not been examined, thereby creating a significant lacuna in the prosecution evidence. 5. It was additionally argued that the prosecution has attempted to introduce an altogether new and inconsistent version regarding the alleged commission of sodomy by accused Kabindra upon co-accused Govinda, which finds no place in the original case and reflects embellishment. Attention was also drawn to the lapses in investigation, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer failed to seize any bloodstains or seminal traces from the place of occurrence. The medical evidence, it was contended, does not support the prosecution version, thereby further weakening its case. It was further submitted Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 4 that the prosecution story appears to have undergone material improvements at different stages, and significantly, the wearing apparel of the victim, which could have constituted crucial evidence, has neither been properly produced nor proved during trial. It was further submitted that the medical evidence of the victim was completely negative, the ocular evidence and such an important aspect of the case, have not been taken into consideration by the learned court below. 6. It was further contended that P.W.11, projected as an eyewitness to the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile during trial, thereby seriously undermining the prosecution version. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court, despite such material infirmity, proceeded to record a finding that the accused persons failed to explain the presence of semen on their wearing apparel. However, this finding, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer (P.W.9), in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that he did not notice or mark the presence of any stains either on the wearing apparel of the victim or on that of the accused persons. 7. In such circumstances, it was argued that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court is based on a misreading of evidence and reflects a clear non-application of judicial mind. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside. A bare perusal of the testimony of P.W.2 (victim), particularly in Para-4 of her evidence, has been materially contradicted, and the same has been Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 5 confronted with the woman by the I.O. (P.W.10) in Para-3 of her evidence. 8. The doctor (P.W.3) who examined the victim has stated that during examination, he found no sign and symptoms of recent sexual intercourse on her body, including the genital area. In case of forcible sexual intercourse/act, the pressure part of the body such as the back, buttock and legs, would receive injuries if it is done over a hard, rough surface. In such a case the vagina, including the hymen would receive injury. 9. The spot of occurrence was an open place and accessible to the public, and some local people were present there. The commission of gang rape in such a place during the day time creates an improbable circumstance for prosecution. 10. Learned Trial Court erred in relying upon the sole testimony of P.W.2 (victim), ignoring the settled principle that a conviction cannot rest on uncorroborated, inconsistent and inherently improbable testimony when other evidence on record does not support the prosecution's case. Further, the Learned Trial Court delivered the conclusive findings without discussing or analyzing the specific role, if any, of the present Appellants. Such a mechanical approach without individualized assessment of participation reflects non-application of the judicial mind, rendering the judgment unsustainable in law. 11. In such view of the matter, it was contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence should be set aside. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 6 III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ STATE: 12. In reply, learned counsel for the State Ms. Gayatri Patra, submitted that the testimony of the Victim-Prosecutrix (P.W. 2) remains unshaken in so far as the sequence of events is concerned, wherein the Appellants, under the false pretext of providing transit, abducted her to the place of occurrence to commit the offence of gang rape. This version finds potent corroboration in the depositions of the post- occurrence witnesses, P.W. 7 & 8. Both witnesses testified to rushing to the spot upon hearing the victim's outcries, where they observed Appellant No.1 emerging from the culvert alongside the victim. Their presence and observations provide a contemporaneous link to the crime, further solidified by the fact that Appellant No.1 forcibly evaded P.W.7 to flee from the scene. 13. The Appellant Aditya Jena fled the spot by using force against P.W. 7 is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872. Such conduct, immediately following the alleged crime, strongly points towards the guilt of the Appellants. The aforementioned circumstances unerringly point towards the guilt of the Appellants in the commission of the crime. These behaviour indicates towards their involvement in the crime. 14. A conviction under section 376D of the IPC can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the said testimony is found to be reliable and trustworthy, and no further corroboration is needed to sustain a conviction. In the present case, the testimony of PW.2 (Victim-Prosecutrix) categorically corroborates the FIR version in all Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 7 material particulars, specifically regarding her abduction on a motorcycle and the subsequent commission of gang rape. Furthermore, her evidence remains consistent with her prior statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., thereby establishing a seamless narrative regarding the acts of wrongful restraint and sexual assault by the Appellants. 15. The Chemical Examination Report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar reveals the presence of human semen in the wearing apparels of the victim. Furthermore, the Appellants failed to explain the presence of semen in the wearing apparel during trial. In light of the aforementioned, it has been clearly iterated by the Apex Court in Moti Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 wherein it is held that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of the doctor. In a given case, even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 16. In Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State of Government (NCT of Delhi)2 the Apex Court has held that “the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable requires no corroboration. Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of prosecutrix under Section 118 and Section 114 Illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Section 118 of Evidence Act, 1872 does not mandate corroboration; Victims testimony is akin to injured witness’ credibility”. 1 (2008) 11 SCC 2020 2 (2011) 10 SCC 192 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 8 17. In Lok Mal@ Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, the Supreme Court has held that evidentiary value and sufficiency for conviction in absence of corroboratory evidence; Evidence of a prosecutrix held to be of the same value as that of an injured witness; therefore, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. 18. Hence, there is no cogent reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, she contended that the Appeal may be dismissed. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: 19. Coming to the submission of the learned defence counsel as to non- examination of a material witness such as Tilili or for that matter any other witness found present at the spot in my humble opinion is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution. As discussed above, prosecution has examined two intendent occurrence witnesses in support of its case i.e. P.W.7 and P.W.8 who arrived at the spot of occurrence and found accused Aditya running away and they apprehended the other co-accused Kabindra red handed at the spot. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution did not examine the material witnesses in this case. Law is well settled that prosecution is not obliged to examine each and every witness to prove a certain fact and it can omit to examine some 3 (2025) 4 SCC 470 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 9 witnesses if prosecution case is otherwise established. In the case at hand, evidence of the victim coupled with the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 and Ext.P-17 sufficiently proves the charge of commission of gang rape on the victim by both the accused persons. Hence, non- examination of some other witnesses is not at all fatal to the case prosecution. 20. Coming to the submission of the learned defence counsel regarding the alleged introduction of a new story by the prosecutrix relating to commission of sodomy by accused Kabindra upon co-accused Govinda, this Court finds that such an assertion does not form part of the core prosecution case. Admittedly, no charge under Section 377 of the IPC has been framed, nor has the prosecution sought to establish such an allegation as a substantive component of the offence. 21. It is a matter of common judicial experience that witnesses, while deposing before the Court, may indulge in certain exaggerations or embellishments. Unless such improvements go to the root of the prosecution case or cause serious prejudice to the accused, they cannot be treated as fatal. In the present case, the said statement appears to be an inconsequential, which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution version relating to the commission of the principal offence. 22. This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the defence on account of such stray statement. The core allegations against the accused persons, namely wrongful restraint and commission of gang rape, remain intact and are supported by the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 10 evidence on record. Therefore, the said embellishment, by itself, cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case in its entirety. 23. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges under Sections 341 and 376D of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt does not call for interference, and both the accused persons have been rightly held guilty and convicted thereunder. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 24. This Court has heard the parties and considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants and the State, and has carefully gone through the entire evidence available on record, including the oral testimony of the witnesses, documentary exhibits, medical evidence and the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court. 25. At the very threshold, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that in cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix is of sterling evidentiary value. If her evidence is found to be natural, consistent and trustworthy, the same can form the sole basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration. At the same time, such testimony must pass the test of intrinsic reliability and must be free from material inconsistencies or improbabilities which may render the prosecution version doubtful. The proposition that in cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix is of sterling evidentiary value which is deeply rooted in both doctrinal evolution and judicial sensitivity towards the nature of such offences. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 11 26. The jurisprudence has progressively moved away from archaic notions of distrust and corroboration, towards recognizing the intrinsic worth and autonomy of the victim’s testimony. Early common law traditions treated the testimony of a rape victim with inherent suspicion, often requiring corroboration as a rule of prudence. This approach was premised on misplaced assumptions about the likelihood of false accusations and the perceived “ease” of making such claims. The prosecutrix is treated at par with an injured witness, whose testimony carries inherent reliability. The Supreme Court of India has, through a long line of decisions, crystallized this principle. 27. In the case at hand, the prosecution rests substantially on the evidence of P.W.2, the victim. A careful scrutiny of her deposition reveals that she has consistently stated that the Appellants, on the pretext of providing her transport, took her to a secluded place and subjected her to sexual assault. Her testimony broadly aligns with the version set out in the First Information Report as well as her previous statements recorded during investigation. 28. The defence has strenuously contended that there are material contradictions in her testimony. This Court finds that certain discrepancies do appear, particularly with regard to peripheral aspects of the occurrence. However, it is well settled that minor inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements do not go to the root of the prosecution case, are liable to be ignored, as they are but natural in the testimony of a witness recounting a traumatic incident. In the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 12 scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the emphasis is on the quality of evidence rather than its flawless consistency. A witness is not expected to possess a photographic memory or to recount every minute detail with exactitude. The courts are required to assess whether the evidence, taken as a whole, inspires confidence and establishes the essential ingredients of the offence or not. Minor discrepancies relating to peripheral or trivial aspects, which do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case, are therefore treated as inconsequential. 29. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that such minor variations are, in fact, indicative of the naturalness of testimony and often lend assurance to its truthfulness. If a witness were to depose with complete uniformity and precision, it may even raise suspicion of tutoring or fabrication. Consequently, courts adopt a pragmatic and commonsensical approach in appreciating evidence, distinguishing between material contradictions that strike at the core of the case and insignificant discrepancies that merely relate to collateral details. 30. The contention relating to absence of medical corroboration has also been examined with due care. The medical officer (P.W.3) has opined that no signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries were detected on the victim. While this aspect does create a circumstance that requires cautious evaluation, it cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of innocence. It is a matter of common judicial experience that the absence of injuries does not necessarily negate the occurrence of rape, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 13 particularly where the victim may have been overpowered or intimidated. 31. The presence of human semen on the wearing apparel of the victim, as indicated in the forensic report, assumes significance. Though the defence has attempted to discredit this circumstance by pointing to alleged lapses in seizure and investigation, the said scientific evidence lends a degree of assurance to the prosecution version and cannot be brushed aside lightly. In the context of sexual offences, detection of semen on the clothing of the victim serves as a corroborative link connecting the occurrence of the alleged act with the surrounding circumstances. While it may not, by itself, conclusively establish the commission of rape, it certainly reinforces the probability of sexual contact and supports the version put forth by the victim. When such evidence is read in conjunction with the testimony of the prosecutrix, it assumes greater probative value and contributes to forming a complete chain of circumstances. 32. The evidence of post-occurrence witnesses, namely P.W.7 and P.W.8, also provides a relevant link in the chain of circumstances. Their testimony that they rushed to the spot upon hearing alarm and noticed one of the accused fleeing, while the other was apprehended at the spot, lends contemporaneous corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix. The conduct of the accused in fleeing from the place of occurrence is a relevant fact under the law of evidence and is indicative of a guilty mind. The argument of the defence regarding non-examination of certain witnesses, including the woman who Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 14 allegedly raised alarm, does not, in the considered opinion of this Court, create a fatal dent in the prosecution case. The law does not require the prosecution to examine each and every witness. What is essential is the quality and not the quantity of evidence. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrix supported by the testimony of P.W.7 and P.W.8 and the surrounding circumstances, is sufficient to establish the prosecution case. 33. The contention that the place of occurrence being an open and accessible area renders the prosecution version improbable has also been considered. It cannot be said as a rule of universal application that offences of this nature cannot occur in places accessible to the public. Criminal acts are often committed with audacity and the mere possibility of public access does not ipso facto render the prosecution case unbelievable, particularly when the evidence on record indicates that the act was committed at a relatively secluded spot. 34. The submission that the Trial Court failed to analyze the individual role of each accused has also been examined. From the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is clear that both the Appellants acted in concert and participated in the commission of the offence. The ingredients of Section 376D of the IPC, relating to gang rape, stand satisfied when the act is committed by multiple persons acting with a common intention. 35. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is supported by surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence to a reasonable Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-May-2026 12:59:00 Signature Not Verified pg. 15 extent. The discrepancies pointed out by the defence are not of such magnitude as to discredit the core of the prosecution case. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellants wrongfully restrained the victim and committed gang rape upon her. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference. VI. CONCLUSION: 36. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The judgment of conviction dated 24.12.2024 and the order of sentence dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC, Jajpur in CT Sessions Case No.63 of 2024 stand affirmed. 37. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The Appellants shall undergo the sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th April, 2026/- CUTTACK