Orissa High Court Reduces Sentence Of Imprisonment Of 26-Yr-Old Man Convicted For Raping 80-Yr-Old Lady

The Orissa High Court upheld a trial court order which convicted a 26-year-old man for raping an 80-year-old woman noting that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It however reduced the sentence imposed from 12 years imprisonment as imposed by trial court, to 10 years imprisonment. While upholding the findings of the trial Court on the guilt of the accused-appellant, the Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held–“This Court taking into account the statement of the victim-P.W.5 [victim] vis-à-vis the statement of P.Ws.12 & 18 as well as P.W.14 [doctors], is of the view that the prosecution has proved the charge of rape on the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no material placed to disbelieve the statement of P.W.5. It is also the view of this court that a lady of 80 years will [not][sic] depose falsehood about the charge, against a boy of 26 years.”The incident dates back to September 11, 2017 when the victim-lady went to a village pond to take bath. While she was taking bath sitting on a stone, the appellant allegedly dragged her to a nearby place and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. Upon knowing about the incident, the grandson of the victim lodged the FIR under Sections 376(2)(m) and 307 of the IPC.The appellant stood trial for commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(m) and 323 IPC. In September 2019, he was found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Angul, who sentenced him to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 376(1) and simple imprisonment of one month for commission of offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Assailing the order of conviction, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 374(2), CrPC.The appellant challenged his conviction on the ground that there was no independent witness to the alleged incident. The medical report of the victim though suggested injuries, it was the contention of the appellant that the same had not occasioned due to the alleged sexual intercourse. Further, it was the argument on behalf of the appellant that he being merely 26-year-old at the time of offence, cannot be held guilty for committing rape on an 80-year-old lady.On the other side, the Additional Standing Counsel vehemently supported the trial Court judgment. He particularly relied upon the testimonies of the victim as well as the examining doctors. The doctors who examined the victim found signs and symptoms of recent sexual intercourse, apart from discovering signs of other bodily injuries. He, therefore, contended that even in the absence of any independent witness, the testimony of the victim, which is well corroborated by the medical evidence, can be relied upon.Upon hearing arguments of both the sides and examining the documentary evidence, Justice Satapathy held–“It is found from the record that P.Ws.12 & 18, who examined the victim, clearly proved the allegation of rape on the victim by the accused…Not only that, P.W.14, who examined the accused has also found injury on his body. It is also found that P.W.5 in her deposition has clearly proved the allegation of rape committed on her by the accused. This Court taking into account the statement of the victim-P.W.5 vis-à-vis the statement of P.Ws.12 & 18 as well as P.W.14, is of the view that the prosecution has proved the charge of rape on the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.”Though the Court upheld the order of conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, it however deemed it proper to decrease the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant from 12 years of rigorous imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.“While not inclined to interfere with the said order of conviction and sentence, but taking into account the age of the victim vis-à-vis the age of the appellant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met, if the appellant will be convicted and sentenced to undergo the minimum sentence so prescribed for the offence under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C. This Court accordingly is only inclined to impose the minimum sentence of 10 (ten) years in place of 12 (twelve) years on the Appellant for the offence under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C.,” it ordered.Case Title: Anil Nath v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case No: CRLA No. 945 of 2019Date of Judgment: April 07, 2026Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. S. Dash, AdvocateCounsel for the State: M/s. P.K. Panda, Additional Standing CounselCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 42Click Here To Read/Download Order

Orissa High Court Reduces Sentence Of Imprisonment Of 26-Yr-Old Man Convicted For Raping 80-Yr-Old Lady

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags