Orrisa HC: Conviction Cannot Rest on Confessions Made to Medical Officers

Prioritizing the sanctity of matrimonial stability and the requirement for concrete evidence, the Orissa High Court has set aside a twenty-year sentence in a POCSO case where the victim had since married the accused and the conviction was primarily based on unreliable medical testimonies.

A single-judge bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra presided over the criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTSC), Jajpur. The court was tasked with determining the validity of a conviction under the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 where the victim had turned hostile and subsequently entered into a happy conjugal life with the appellant.

Court Rejects Hearsay and Confessional Statements to Doctors

The Court noted a critical flaw in the trial court's reliance on the testimony of the Medical Officer (P.W. 4). The trial court had accepted an alleged statement made by the accused and the victim to the doctor regarding sexual intercourse as a basis for conviction, despite the medical report itself showing no signs of recent injury.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It would not be fair, proper and judicious to come to a conclusion that the accused had committed rape on the victim on the basis of the alleged confessional statement made by both of them before the P.W-4, by ignoring the medical examination report. Moreover, the learned trial Court, as it appears, has not examined the validity of such statement made by the accused and the victim before the Medical Officer. Instead, the learned trial Court has hastily come to a conclusion on the basis of the deposition of the P.W-4 wherein the P.W-4 has referred to the confessional statement of both the accused and the victim."

Absence of Evidence for Kidnapping

Regarding the charges under Section 363 and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide any independent witnesses. The victim herself denied being kidnapped, stating she had gone to a friend's house. Consequently, the Court held that the finding of the trial court regarding kidnapping was not based on any evidence on record.

Impact of Marriage and Judicial Precedents

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the appellant and the victim had married and were raising two children. Relying on the principles laid down in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and others and Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that continuing the punishment would cause undue harassment to a settled family. The Court also noted similar approaches taken by coordinate benches in Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan vs. State of Odisha and others and Deepak Kumar Singh vs. State of Odisha.

The Court has the following directions:

"the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. This Court further directs that in the event the Appellant is in judicial custody and his custodial detention is not required in any other case, he shall be set at liberty forthwith. Since this Court holds that no offence against the Appellant is made out and that the victim has turned hostile, the amount of victim Compensation, if any paid to the victim shall be refunded by the victim to the District Legal Services Authority. If the victim fails to do so then it is open to the competent authority to take steps for recovery of such compensation amount from the victim."

Background:

The dispute arose from an FIR lodged by the victim's mother in 2020, alleging that her 16-year-old daughter was missing. The appellant was arrested and subsequently convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the victim was now his wife, they had children together, and the medical evidence was inconsistent. The High Court, after scrutinizing the records and the victim's affidavit, found the conviction lacked a legal foundation.

Key Takeaways:

Medical Officer Testimonies Limited

Confessions made to medical officers during examinations do not constitute judicial confessions and cannot override negative physical medical findings.

Hostile Witnesses in POCSO

While a conviction can occur despite a hostile witness, it requires unbroken circumstantial evidence, which was absent in this case where the victim denied the ordeal.

Rehabilitative Justice in Marital Contexts

Courts are increasingly looking at the "real-world" stability of the parties; where a victim and accused have married and formed a family, technical convictions that destroy the family unit are discouraged.

Ratio Decidendi:

A conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a medical officer’s testimony regarding an alleged oral confession if the physical medical examination report contradicts the occurrence of recent sexual intercourse and the victim has turned hostile.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRLA No.507 of 2025
Case Title: Somanath Janka v. State of Odisha
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ramesh Maharana, Advocate; Mr. A.K. Moharana, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Smt. Sasmita Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel; Mr. Rasmi Ranjan Nayak, Advocate (for Victim)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ORI) 1