IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 35 of 2026 Kunal Kanta …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Informant …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 29.04.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Being aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Sundargarh in Spl. G.R. Case No.99 of 2025 rejecting the prayer for discharge, the present criminal revision has been preferred. 3. It is the case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12.08.2025 at 07.46 PM informant lodged a written report alleging therein that on 08.02.2025 his daughter, aged about 14 years, proceeded to Budakata village from her house to the house of Minaketan Badi to attend name ceremony and at about 09.00 AM she went to house of Kishor Kanta to call for her father due to a slipper missing from that place. At that time when she requested for phone to Kunal Kanta to dial her father, he dragged her into his house and closed the door suddenly touched her body and forcefully tried to commit rape. He also assaulted her by slapping and abused her in obscene language and threatened her. When she shouted, one Samir Kanta heard and knocked the door. Then she opened the door and Kunal Kanta said to Samir Kanta to drop her in her house. On the way she disclosed the matter to Samir Kanta. After a few days when she went to school, she became senseless regarding this incident and her family members shifted her to Hi-Tech Hospital, Rourkela. The MO, Hi-Tech hospital disclosed to her parents that she is suffering from depression. Hence, the FIR was registered as Kutra (sundargarh) P.S. No.200 of 2025 under Section 65(1)/351(2)/115(2)/296 of BNS read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 08.10.2025 under Section 126(2)/ 127(2)/ 65(1)/ 62/ 115(2)/ 351(2)(3)/ 296 of BNS read with Section 4/ 17/8/12 of POCSO Act. 4. It is submitted with vehemence by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, no offence under Section 65(1) of the BNS is made out. For convenience the said section is extracted hereunder; “65. Punishment for rape in certain cases.- (1) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty 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: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim. xxx xxx xxx” 5. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed on record the 183 BNSS statement of the victim. And, referring to the impugned order, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has completely glossed over this aspect while rejecting the prayer for discharge. 6. Per contra, learned public prosecutor opposes the same. 7. It is trite that during the framing of charge, the gambit of scrutiny is very limited and it is not permissible to take into account the defense of the accused unless there are glaring and overwhelming circumstances. In fact on perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, it is seen that the time tested principle as enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 has been relied upon. 8. It is apt to note that the Petitioner is charged under Section 65(1) read with Section 62 of the BNS. For convenience of reference section 62 of BNS runs thus; “62. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.—Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Sanhita with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.” 9. Considering the submissions made in the light of the statement under Section 183 BNSS and the provisions under Section 65(1) read with Section 62 BNS, this Court does not find any merit in his submission that the offence under Section 65(1) BNS is not made out. 10. As such, the Criminal Revision stands rejected. 11. It is needless to state here that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the Petitioner qua discharge and that ought not to weigh with the learned Trial Court while evaluating materials vis-à-vis the Petitioner in an independent manner during trial. (V. Narasingh) Judge Santoshi