While finding the accused guilty of the heinous offence, Saroj Kumar Sahoo, Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Bhubaneswar, observed–

“On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that the accused took away the victim from him. The doctor who has examined the victim has clearly deposed that on medical examination of the victim she found that there was violent forcible sexual intercourse with the minor.P.W.5 the doctor who has examined the accused also deposed that on his medical examination of the accused there was nothing to suggest that the examinee was not capable of performing sexual intercourse. It is also clear from his evidence that on examination of the genital of the accused, he found it was consistence with forcible sexual intercourse.”

As per the prosecution, in the afternoon of 30.06.2024, the maternal grandfather of the victim was carrying her while she was crying. The accused, who is a neighbour, came to her, fondled her cheek and took her to his house on the promise of giving guava. When the victim did not return even after passage of 15-20 minutes, the grandfather asked the mother of the victim to bring her back.

When the mother of the victim went to the house of the accused, she found the room to be locked and therefore, asked the cousin sister of the accused to bring the victim from the accused. When the cousin sister of the accused pushed the door, the mother of the victim found the accused sleeping on the surface below a wooden bed/cot wearing a towel, which was stained with blood. She further found the victim lying on the cot in an unconscious condition and her whole body was stained with blood. She also saw blood oozing out of the private part/vagina of the victim.

On the basis of the aforesaid information supplied by the mother of the victim (the informant), the police registered an FIR under Sections 376-AB of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 376-AB (rape on woman under 12 years of age)/376(2)(m) (causing grievous bodily harm or maiming or disfiguring or endangering life while committing rape)/363 (kidnapping)/342 (wrongful confinement)/323 (voluntarily causing hurt)/ 294 (obscene act)/506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC read with Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.

As a primary step in all the POCSO cases, the Court first delved to determine the age of the victim. As per Section 34(1) of the POCSO Act read with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as concretised by the authoritative rulings of the Apex Court in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538, the Court held the birth certificate to be valid evidence of proof of age. As per the said certificate, the victim was found to be merely aged 2 years 8 months 17 days on the date of occurrence.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including the grandfather and mother of the victim, and exhibited a number of documents. The mother of the victim consistently reiterated the version she had put-forth in the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 161, CrPC. She clearly deposed to have seen the accused lying on the floor with blood-stained apparel while the victim was lying unconscious near him with blood coming out from her private part.

Though the prosecution attempted to examine the victim as a witness and the Court conducted a voir dire test, she failed to speak anything for which her evidence could not be recorded. The testimony of her grandfather and uncle corroborated the evidence of her mother. The doctor, who medically examined the victim, unequivocally stated about fresh tears and bleeding from cheek and vagina, suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse. The doctor, who examined the accused, found him to be capable of committing sexual intercourse.

The counsel appearing for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to produce the chemical examination report and hence, the allegation that the accused was found with blood-stained apparel is not reliable. Even the investigating officer deposed that he had seized the clothes of the accused while apprehending him but no trace of blood was found on it. However, the Court dismissed such evidence observing that the accused was arrested only on 02.07.2024, while the incident took place on 30.06.2024. Thus, it held–

“It is alleged that occurrence took place on 30.06.2024. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 it is clear that occurrence took place in between 03:30 to 04 PM of 30.06.2024. The accused was apprehended only on 02.07.2024 and his wearing apparels were seized at 09:30 AM on the same day. It is not at all probable that on 02.07.2024, the accused was moving with the dress which he had worn at the time of occurrence on 30.06.2024.”

Further, the Court underlined the testimony of the mother and grandfather of the victim who had clearly deposed to have seen the accused wearing a blood-stained towel at the time of incident. Taking into account such evidence, the Court did not give weightage to the so-called inconsistency in evidence regarding blood-stained clothes of the accused.

Accordingly, considering the consistent testimonies of the mother and grandfather of the child along with the evidence of the doctors, the Court was of the view that the prosecution allegation regarding commission of rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the accused on the victim has enough force.

“The spot visit report of the scientific team exhibit (P.-20) prepared during their spot visit along with the IO on 01.07.2024 corroborates the allegation of forcible physical relationship the accused with the victim. Prosecution successfully proved that the accused kidnapped the victim who was aged 2 years 8 months 17 days on 30.06.2024 at Panchagaon from her lawful guardianship and committed rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her,” it added.

Resultantly, it found the accused guilty for commission of offences under Section 376-AB/363/323/342 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon conducting the hearing on question of sentence, the Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 (thirty) years along with fine for commission of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, apart from sentencing him for other offences.

An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh) was ordered as compensation to the victim, in compliance with the directive of the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018) and the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme.

Case Title: State of Odisha v. Kanha @ Santosh Khuntia

Case No: TR Case No. 370 of 2024

Date of Judgment: June 17, 2026

Counsel for the Accused: Gorakh Nath Das, Advocate & Associates

Counsel for the Prosecution/State: Shri Rajiv Sasmal, Special Public Prosecutor, Bhubaneswar; Shri Balaram Deo, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Bhubaneswar