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

Post By 24law
February 24, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man found guilty of deceitfully inducing a minor girl into believing that he was her lawfully wedded husband and subsequently causing her miscarriage by administering pills. While affirming the findings of the trial court, the Single Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy granted him the benefit of release under the Probation of Offenders Act, considering that the case dates back to 1991 and the accused is now 63 years old.

Court’s Observation on Conviction and Probation

Justice Satapathy, while upholding the conviction, stated: “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.”

Case Background

The case arose from a complaint filed by the victim’s father before the SDJM, Anandpur. According to the prosecution, the appellant had put a garland on the victim inside a temple and deceitfully induced her into accepting him as her lawfully wedded husband. As a result, she began cohabiting with him, leading to her pregnancy. Later, upon learning of her condition, the accused allegedly gave her certain pills, falsely claiming they were vitamins meant to alleviate her weakness. However, these pills caused her miscarriage. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandpur convicted the appellant under Sections 493 (cohabitation by deceitfully inducing belief of lawful marriage) and 313 (causing miscarriage without the woman's consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction and sentence were later challenged before the Orissa High Court.

Court’s Findings and Legal Interpretation

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand (2012), where it was observed that an offense under Section 493 IPC is established when two conditions are met: (a) Deceit causing a false belief of the existence of a lawful marriage; and (b) Cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the person under that false belief. The court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), emphasizing that “the essence of offense 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.”

Evaluation of Victim’s Testimony

Examining the victim’s evidence, the court noted that in her cross-examination, she clearly stated that the accused had garlanded her after sunset at the bijesthali of the deity Thanapati, thereby making her believe she was lawfully married to him. Under this deception, she engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with the accused. She further testified that due to this relationship, she experienced a missed menstrual cycle and general weakness.

Medical Evidence Corroborating the Allegations

The court also scrutinized the testimony of the doctor who examined the victim. The doctor noted that she had complained of vaginal bleeding, and upon examination, he found “product of conception present at her cervix.” He further stated that pregnancy of four months could be terminated by administering chloroquine tablets, which suggested that the victim’s pregnancy was in the process of termination.

Final Ruling and Sentence Modification

Taking into account the strong evidentiary support from both the victim and medical expert, the court upheld the trial court’s conviction of the accused. The judgment emphasized: “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.”

However, considering the prolonged passage of time—33 years since the offense occurred—the court exercised its discretion to grant the accused the benefit of release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court directed: “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.”