Accused Somanath Janka’s Conviction Overturned After Victim Turns Hostile and Medical Evidence Fails to Corroborate Allegations
In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court on June 30, 2026, overturned the conviction of Somanath Janka, who was previously sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years under sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alongside Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The judgment was delivered by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, following an appeal challenging the decision of the Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC), Jajpur.
The appellate court's decision was grounded on the absence of corroborative evidence, medical findings, and the victim’s hostile stance during the trial. Originally, the allegations against Janka included kidnapping and repeated sexual assault of a minor. However, during the legal proceedings, the victim denied all allegations and admitted to willingly leaving her home with Janka, with whom she later married and had children.
The prosecution's case suffered a severe blow as the victim, considered a pivotal witness, did not support the claims made in the FIR filed by her mother. Furthermore, the medical report failed to indicate any signs of recent sexual intercourse, undermining the prosecution's argument of rape. The court emphasized the necessity for reliable corroborative evidence, particularly in cases where the victim does not substantiate the allegations.
The court scrutinized the evidence and noted inconsistencies in the medical examination report and the testimony of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Jena, the examining medical officer. Although the report noted hymeneal tears, it also stated no signs of recent intercourse, leading to the conclusion that the findings were insufficient to uphold the conviction.
Justice Mohapatra highlighted the importance of cautious reliance on circumstantial evidence, especially when it is unsupported by direct testimony from the victim. The court referred to precedents, including judgments by the Supreme Court of India, where proceedings were quashed under similar circumstances. The decision also took into account the couple’s marriage and their desire to live peacefully, emphasizing the need to avoid undue harassment.
The judgment directs the release of Janka, provided he is not required in any other case, and orders the refund of victim compensation paid under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, if any. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on substantive and corroborated evidence, ensuring justice is served without prejudice.
Bottom line:-
Conviction for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act set aside due to lack of corroborative evidence, medical evidence, and the victim turning hostile. The court emphasized the need for cautious reliance on circumstantial evidence, particularly when the victim denies allegations.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 482 of CrPC.
Somanath Janka v. State Of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2932671
