Probation Of Offenders Act | Orissa HC Releases Man Accused Of Deceitfully Having Sex, Causing Miscarriage Of Minor In 1991

The Orissa High Court has upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against a man, who was held guilty of having sex with a minor girl by deceitfully inducing her to believe that he was her lawfully married husband and thereafter, causing miscarriage by administering pills.

The Single Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, however, released him under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act by taking into account the fact that the offence is of the year 1991 and the convict is now 63 years old.

“…while not being inclined to interfere with the same, taking into account the incident being of the year 1991 and since in the meantime more than 33 years have passed, this Court directs for release of the appellant under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,” it said.

Case Background

A complaint was filed by the father of the victim before the SDJM, Anandpur alleging that the appellant had put garland on the victim in a temple and deceitfully induced her to accept him as her lawfully married husband and thereby, started cohabiting with her. As a result of continuous cohabitation, the victim conceived.

It was further alleged that when the appellant came to know about pregnancy of the victim, he administered certain medicines/pills to her on the false pretext that those pills were vitamin tablets which would help to tackle her weakness. However, those medicines caused miscarriage of the victim.

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandpur took cognizance against the appellant under Sections 493 (cohabitation by man by deceitfully inducing belief of lawful marriage) and 313 (causing miscarriage without woman's consent) of the IPC and also convicted and sentenced him under the said provisions. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the appellant brought the matter to the High Court in this appeal.

Court's Findings

The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand (2012), wherein it was held that the ingredients of Section 493 can be said to be fully satisfied when it is proved – (a) deceit causing a false belief of existence of a lawful marriage; and (b) cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the person causing such belief.

“It is not necessary to establish the factum of marriage according to personal law but the proof of inducement by a man deceitfully to a woman to change her status from that of an unmarried to that of a lawfully married woman and then make that woman cohabit with him establishes an offence under Section 493 IPC,” it had held.

Reliance was further placed upon Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), in which the Supreme Court elaborated the requirements under Section 493, IPC and held that the essence of offence under Section 493 IPC is practice of deception by a man on a woman as a consequence of which the woman is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him although she is not and then make her cohabit with him.

Against the backdrop of the above principles of law, the Court examined the evidence of the victim. She, in her cross-examination, had stated that the appellant had garlanded her after sunset at the bijesthali of the deity Thanapati and thereby, made her to believe that he was her lawfully wedded husband. On such deceptive belief, he had repeated sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that due to such physical relationship, she stopped having menstruation and started feeling weak.

The Court also went through the evidence of the doctor, who medically examined the victim. He stated that the victim complained of vaginal bleeding. Upon examination, he found 'product of conception' present at her cervix. He further opined that pregnancy of four months can be terminated by taking chloroquine tablets and the pregnancy of the victim was in the process of termination.

Therefore, considering the aforesaid evidence in the light of the settled position of law, the Court was of the considered view that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Accordingly, it held –

“This Court after going through the evidence of the victim-P.W.2 vis-à-vis the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.7, finds that the victim clearly implicated the accused-appellant for having sexual relationship with her and administering the medicine to terminate the pregnancy on 03.03.1991. Since the evidence of P.W. 2 has not been discarded in her cross-examination by the appellant-accused, this Court in view of such uncontroverted evidence of the victim coupled with the statement of P.W. 1, 3 and 7, is of the view that the appellant has been rightly sentenced to undergo the imprisonment vide the impugned judgment dated 12.02.1993.”

Though the order of conviction was not disturbed, the Court considered it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant, especially taking into account the fact that the alleged offence is of 1991 and by now, 33 years have elapsed and the appellant has become nearly 63-year-old.

“This Court accordingly directs the appellant to appear before the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Anandpur for his release under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order,” it ordered.

Case Title: Dolagobinda Jena v. State of Orissa

Case No: CRA No. 55 of 1993

Date of Judgment: February 17, 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 32

Click Here To Read/Download Order