Court Convicts Accused Under POCSO Act
A Fast Track Special Court in Bhubaneswar has sentenced a 24-year-old man to 30 years’ rigorous imprisonment for raping a two-year-old girl, holding that the prosecution had proved the charges of aggravated penetrative sexual assault through reliable circumstantial and medical evidence.
The judgment was delivered by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Bhubaneswar, in State of Odisha v. Kanha @ Santosh Khuntia, on June 17, 2026. The Court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, along with Sections 376AB, 363, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting him of offences under Sections 376(2)(m), 294 and 506 IPC.
Incident Led to Registration of FIR
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on June 30, 2024, when the victim, aged about 2 years, was with her grandfather outside their residence.
The accused allegedly took the child to his house on the pretext of giving her a guava. When the child did not return, family members went to the accused’s house and found her unconscious on a cot, bleeding from her private parts, while the accused was lying on the floor.
Victim’s Age Established Through Birth Certificate
The Court held that the prosecution had conclusively established the victim’s age through her birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths.
Referring to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Supreme Court decisions in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, the Court held that the victim was a “child” within the meaning of the POCSO Act.
Medical Evidence Supported Prosecution Case
The doctor who examined the child found multiple injuries, including bite marks on the cheek, tears to the upper lip and mouth, a vaginal tear with active bleeding, and fresh injuries suggestive of recent forcible sexual intercourse.
The medical expert opined that there had been violent forcible sexual intercourse with the minor victim. The doctor who examined the accused also found injuries on his genitalia consistent with forcible sexual intercourse.
Court Relied on Circumstantial Evidence
The defence argued that the prosecution had failed to produce a chemical examination report and that lapses in investigation created doubt regarding the accused’s involvement.
The Court acknowledged deficiencies in the investigation but held that such lapses could not benefit the accused where reliable evidence otherwise established guilt. It found the testimony of the victim’s grandfather and mother trustworthy and corroborated by medical and scientific evidence.
POCSO Presumption Invoked
The Court observed that prosecutions under the POCSO Act are aided by the statutory presumptions contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, which cast a reverse burden on the accused.
It held that the accused had failed to rebut these presumptions or discharge the burden of proving that he had not committed the alleged offences.
Court Acquits Accused of Certain Charges
While holding that rape, kidnapping, wrongful confinement and voluntarily causing hurt had been proved, the Court found insufficient evidence to sustain charges under Sections 376(2)(m), 294 and 506 IPC.
Accordingly, the accused was acquitted of those offences but convicted under Sections 376AB, 363, 323 and 342 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
30-Year Sentence and ₹5 Lakh Compensation
At the sentencing stage, the defence sought leniency on the ground that the convict was a first-time offender aged 24 years and the sole breadwinner of his family. The prosecution sought the maximum punishment considering the gravity of the offence.
Invoking Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Court sentenced the convict to 30 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It also imposed seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC and one year each under Sections 323 and 342 IPC, with all substantive sentences to run concurrently.
Victim Awarded Compensation
The Court further directed payment of ₹5 lakh as victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, after taking into account the physical and mental trauma suffered by the child.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India while directing the District Legal Services Authority, Khurda, to ensure payment of compensation after adjusting any interim compensation already disbursed.
