{"id":48156,"date":"2002-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002"},"modified":"2018-05-18T22:22:10","modified_gmt":"2018-05-18T16:52:10","slug":"sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: K Balakrishnan<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  646 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nSudhansu Sekhar Sahoo\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Orissa\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/12\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. Sabharwal & K.G. Balakrishnan.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis  appeal  is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of
\nOrissa, dated 27th July, .1993.\t   The appellant was found guilty of offences
\npunishable under section 376 IPC and 342 IPC by the  Sessions Court,
\nKalahandi, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the
\noffence under section 376 IPC and for three months for the offence under section
\n342 IPC.   The conviction and sentence of the appellant\t  was confirmed by the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring\tthe  relevant  time, the appellant was\ta  District Malaria Officer.
\nThe complainant,  (hereinafter referred to as Ms. X)   was a lady Supervisor
\nworking in the Integrated Child Development Project.   She was a post-graduate
\nand was about 29 years of age during the relevant time.\t She was  staying in a
\nrented\thouse owned by the local post master.  The case of the prosecution was
\nthat on 1.3.1987, PW-2, a  female Anganwadi worker, along with\ther female
\nhelper came to Ms. X at 6. P.M. in a jeep   and\t told\ther that she was required
\nby District Social Welfare Officer.   Ms. X  accompanied  them in the jeep which
\nwas being driven by a driver and there was also a Malaria Inspector in the jeep.
\nPW-2 told Ms. X\t that she had come pursuant to the direction given by the
\nappellant and that she had been told to inform Ms. X that D.S.W.O. required her
\npresence.    At about 7 P.M., all of them left in the jeep and\twhen they reached a
\nsmall town,  which was\t about 13 kms. away from the residence of Ms. X, the
\nappellant was waiting there.   The further case of the prosecution is that when the
\njeep reached  that place,   PW-2, (the female Anganwadi\t worker)  and her helper
\nalighted from the jeep and Ms. X though wanted to alight, but she was prevented
\nfrom doing so and the appellant\t got into the driver’s seat of\tthe jeep and drove
\naway  the vehicle speedily.\t The  jeep   driven by the appellant  along    with
\nMs. X ,\t   the Malaria Inspector and the driver reached the house of the appellant
\nat about 11.30 P.M.   The house of the appellant was about 120 kms.   away
\nfrom the place\tof residence of Ms. X.\t Ms. X was told that D.S.W.O. was sitting
\ninside the house and the appellant invited Ms. X to his house.\t The bag of  Ms. X
\nwas carried inside the house of the appellant by a peon.   The case of the
\nprosecution is that as soon as Ms. X entered the house of the appellant, the
\nappellant closed the door.  Though Ms. X wanted to leave the place, she was not
\nallowed to go.\t She was offered dinner, but she declined to have it.
\nThereafter, according to the prosecution, the\tappellant  had forcible sexual
\nintercourse with Ms. X and she fell unconscious.  When she regained her
\nsenses,\t she found her clothes in disorder  and\t discovered   that   she  had
\nbeen ravished by the appellant.\t  At about 7.30 A.M. on 2.3.1987,     PW-3,   the
\ndriver along with one Junior Engineer came to the house of the appellant and
\nmade  enquiries\t   about Ms. X.\t  The Junior Engineer told that he came to know
\nthat Ms. X was ill and had come for treatment and that\tshe was in the house of
\nthe appellant.\t  PW-3 brought an autorickshaw\tand  in that autorickshaw  Ms. X
\nproceeded to the bus stand and\t travelled   in a  bus and    reached the house of
\nPW-4, a project officer.    PW-4 found Ms. X  in a disturbed mood and in spite of
\nrepeated questions,    Ms. X did  not  tell as to what had happened to her.   In the
\nevening, PW-4 came  back from her office and made further enquiries when she
\nfound Ms. X crying and not taking any food.   On  the next morning, Ms. X  told
\neverything about the incident that had taken place in  the house of the appellant
\nand narrated how she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.   PW-4
\nadvised her to give a statement in  writing.   On 4.3.1987,  PW-4, along with Ms.
\nX, went to the police station and handed over the written statement.   As per the
\ndirection of the Investigating Officer, Ms. X was sent for medical examination.
\nOn the next day,    she handed over the clothes worn by her at the time of
\ncommission of offence by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Investigating Officer got the statements of\t the witnesses recorded
\nunder Section 164 Cr.P.C.   The Sessions Court after considering the evidence
\ncame to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence  of wrongful
\nconfinement  and rape.\t In the Sessions Court, the appellant admitted that Ms. X
\nwas brought to his house in a jeep.   According to the appellant, he  was told that
\na sick lady required treatment urgently.  The Malaria Inspector and the driver
\nwere present in the jeep and he took the sick lady in the jeep and when the jeep
\nreached his place of residence at about 11.30 P.M., he asked the Malaria
\nInspector to take the sick lady to the hospital, but she requested  that she may be
\ngiven shelter in his house.    As it was difficult to find an alternative place, he
\nallowed the  lady to stay in his house and asked the watchman to   give her food.
\nThe sick lady was found vomiting.   The watchman gave her a  separate room
\nand  the appellant  slept in his own room.  The appellant completely denied the
\noffence of rape and wrongful confinement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Sessions Court after elaborate consideration of the matter came to
\nthe conclusion that Ms. X had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant who
\nwas a superior officer and that she being  the prosecutrix  in a rape case, her
\nevidence has to be given due weight.  The High Court also agreed with the
\nconclusion reached by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel who appeared for the appellant drew our attention to
\nthe various circumstances which made the prosecution story highly improbable.
\nIt was argued that Ms. X travelled nearly 120 kms. during night and reached the
\nappellant’s house,    but she had not raised any  protest against the conduct of
\nthe appellant  till she filed her written  statement before the police.\t  It was also
\npointed out that  the evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by any medical
\nevidence and there are so many other circumstances which would belie the
\nprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs. X was staying near the place of her work in a rented house.\t When
\nthe female Anganwadi worker along with her helper came to her  and told that
\nshe was required by her superior officer, she did not ask anything as to why her
\npresence was required during night.   She readily followed them and went  in a
\njeep to the place which was about 13 kms. away.\t There, she met the appellant
\nand according to Ms. X, she was prevented from\talighting from the jeep and the
\nappellant drove\t away the vehicle hastily in order to prevent Ms. X from getting
\ndown from the vehicle.\t But she admitted during cross-examination that she had
\nnot stated these facts in the written complaint made by her.\tTherefore, the
\nelement of forcible   taking away of  Ms. X by the appellant is lacking in the
\ncomplaint.  According to Ms. X, the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with
\nher though she resisted this physical onslaught\t and sustained injuries.
\nAccording to her, both\tnail marks  and biting marks were there on her body.
\nMs. X was examined by a doctor on 4.3.1987, but\t she  was not satisfied with this
\nexamination and she was again taken to another doctor on 10.3.1987 for medical
\nexamination.   The doctor, who examined her on 4.3.1987 was not examined and
\nthe medical certificate also was not produced as an item of evidence.\t In the
\nmedical certificate that  was produced pursuant to the medical examination done
\non 10.3.1987,  there was no mention  of nail marks or any other signs  of
\nviolence on her body.\t Thus,\t the  corroborative   evidence is lacking in this
\ncase.\tIt is\tsignificant to note  that according to\tMs. X, her clothes had seminal
\nstains. She produced these clothes before the police, but these clothes did not
\ncontain any stain either of blood or semen.   Had there been any stains of semen
\nor blood on the clothes allegedly worn by her at the time of  commission of
\noffence, it  would have gone a\tlong way to prove the case of the prosecution,
\nespecially Ms. X being an unmarried woman.\n<\/p>\n
That apart, there is no valid explanation offered by Ms. X  to travel all the
\nway from her place of residence.  Ms. X being an educated woman would have
\nnaturally foreseen the impropriety of travelling along with other males in a jeep
\nfor such a long distance during night.\tIt is true, people act differently to  same
\nsituations.   There are persons who are unduly\t timorous and imagine every path
\nbeset with lions and there are others  of more\tof  robust temperament\twho fail
\nto foresee   or non-challantly\t disregard  even the most obvious dangers.   Ms.
\nX,   an unmarried woman travelled in a jeep for long distance in night and her
\nconduct appears to be unusual and there is no rational\t explanation  as to what
\nurgent official work could have been there to  undertake this nocturnal journey to
\nmeet her superior officer.\n<\/p>\n
It is also pertinent to note that the appellant\t and the Malaria Officer were
\nknown to Ms. X.\t  Two days prior to 2.3..1987, i.e. 28.2.1987, there was a circle
\nmeeting\t   where  Ms. X was required in her capacity as lady supervisor.  The
\nplace of that meeting was 35 kms.   away from her residence.  Ms. X admitted in
\nher evidence that on the same day the appellant came to her house and
\nenquired  why she had not attended the circle meeting and the appellant offered
\nhelp for her treatment.\t She  also deposed that the appellant noted his address
\nin her diary.\tThis shows  the\t previous acquaintance\tof Ms. X with the
\nappellant.   It is also significant to note that on the next day at about 7.30 A.M.,
\nthe Junior Engineer and one driver came and enquired about Ms. X.     How
\nthese two persons came to know of the presence of Ms. X in the\thouse of the
\nappellant, also is not known.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to be given
\ndue weight.  The sexual violence is a dehumanising act and it is  an unlawful
\nencroachment into the right to privacy and sanctity of woman.  The courts also
\nshould be strict and vigilant to protect the society from such evils.  It is in the
\ninterest of the society that  serious crimes like rape should be effectively
\ninvestigated.  It is equally important that there must be fairness to all sides.   In a
\ncriminal case, the court has to\t consider the triangulation of interests.    It
\ninvolves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her
\nfamily and the public.\t The purpose of criminal law is to permit everyone to go
\nabout their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe counsel for the respondent State contended that the evidence of the
\nprosecutrix , which is accepted by two courts, is sufficient to uphold the
\nconviction of the appellant for the offence of rape and\t it was argued that in\trape
\ncases, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to enter a conviction.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that the sole testimony  of the victim of a sexual offence can be a
\nbasis for conviction provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance.  This
\nCourt had occasion, in many cases,  to consider the nature of evidence\trequired
\nwhen the conviction mainly based on the testimony of the victim of the sexual
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Balwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab   (1987) 2 SCC 27,\t the
\nvictim was a 19 years old student and the allegation was that when she was on
\nher way to the college, three accused persons forcibly took her away in a car to
\nthe canal bank where she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused.
\nShe fell unconscious and later she was found lying in a state of
\nunconsciousness under a Banyan tree  by her father.   There was no eye
\nwitness.  On medical examination, her hymen was found torn and there were
\nreddish abrasions on her breast.  The police investigated the case and the case
\nwas reported to be cancelled.  The victim filed a private complaint and the
\nMagistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the court of sessions.   The
\nSessions Judge convicted the accused  persons and this Court confirmed the
\nconviction.   This Court held  that both the  learned Additional Sessions Judge
\nand the High Court have\t believed the evidence of the prosecutrix and her father
\nand in their opinion there is no reason why their evidence should not be believed
\nand the conviction was thus solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn   Rafiq  vs. State of U.P.<\/a>  (1980) 4 SCC 262, a middle-aged bal sewika
\nin a  village welfare  organisation was raped by the appellant around  2.30 a.m.
\nwhen she was  sleeping in a girls’ school.    On the next day, she reported the
\nmatter to the mukhya sewika  of the village.   The counsel for the accused
\ncontended that there was absence of corroboration of the testimony of the
\nprosecutrix and that there was absence of injuries on the person of the woman
\nand so the conviction was unsustainable.  But this plea was rejected and this
\nCourt held :\n<\/p>\n
“The facts  and circumstances often vary from case to case, the
\ncrime situation and the myriad psychic factors, social conditions
\nand people’s life-styles may fluctuate, and so, rules of prudence
\nrelevant in one\t fact-situation may be inept in another.   We cannot
\naccept the argument that regardless of the specific circumstances
\nof a crime and criminal milieu, some strands of probative reasoning
\nwhich appealed to a Bench in one reported decision must
\nmechanically be extended to other cases.   Corroboration as a
\ncondition for judicial reliance\t on the testimony of a prosecutrix  is
\nnot a matter of\t law but a guidance of prudence under given
\ncircumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Krishan Lal vs. State of Haryana<\/a>  (1980) 3 SCC 159,\t the victim was
\nsleeping with her mother and other children outside her house on a hot night
\nand the two accused persons carried her away to a nearby godown under
\nintimidation and allegedly committed rape on the young woman.\tIn the morning,
\nthe mother of the victim found blood on the daughter’s salwar  and thereupon she
\nnarrated the criminal assault  of the  accused on the previous night.\tThe
\ncounsel for the\t accused urged that the evidence of the prosecutrix, without
\nsubstantial corroboration, was inadequate to rest a conviction under Section 376
\nIPC.   This plea was rejected and it was held by this Court as under :\n<\/p>\n
“We must bear in mind human psychology and behavioural
\nprobability when assessing the testimonial potency of the victim’s
\nversion.   What girl would foist a rape charge on a stranger unless a
\nremarkable  set of facts or clearest motives were  made out?  The
\ninherent bashfulness, the innocent naivete and the feminine
\ntendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression
\nare factors which are relevant to improbabilise the hypothesis of
\nfalse  implication.   The injury on the person of the victim, especially
\nher private parts, has corroborative value..To forsake
\nthese vital considerations and go by the obsolescent demands for
\nsubstantial corroboration is to sacrifice common sense in favour of
\nan artificial  concoction called ‘Judicial’ probability.  Indeed, the
\nCourt loses its credibility  if it rebels against realism.   The law court
\nis not an unnatural world.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain<\/a>  (1990)
\n1 SCC 550,  a girl eloped with a 25 years old  young man.   They went to
\nBombay and got married.\t Thereafter they came to a  place near Nagpur and
\nchecked in a lodge.   The local Police Sub-Inspector came to know that the
\ncouple was staying in the said lodge and he took them to the police station
\nwhere the  husband was beaten up and the wife was threatened.  The Sub-
\nInspector registered a case against the husband alleging that  he was found
\nmisbehaving on a public street\tand put him in the lock-up.  The girl was left in a
\nhotel.\tIt was alleged that the Sub-Inspector visited the girl’s room  and
\ncommitted rape on her.\t In that case, this Court elaborately considered the
\nquestion whether conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim of
\nthe sexual offence and held :\n<\/p>\n
“Is it essential that evidence of prosecutrix should be corroborated
\nin material particulars before the court bases a conviction on her
\ntestimony?  Does the rule of prudence demand that  in all cases
\nsave the rarest of rare the  court should look for corroboration
\nbefore acting on the evidence of the prosecutrix..\n<\/p>\n
A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with
\naccomplice.  She is in fact a victim of the crime.   The Evidence Act
\nnowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
\ncorroborated in material particulars.  She is undoubtedly a
\ncompetent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must
\nreceive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of
\nphysical violence.   The same degree of care and caution must
\nattach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured
\ncomplainant or witness and no more.   What is necessary is that the
\ncourt must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing
\nwith the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of
\nthe charge levelled by her.   If the court keeps this in mind and feels
\nsatisfied that it can act on the  evidence  of the prosecutrix, there is
\nno rule of law or practice incorporated in the\tEvidence Act similar
\nto illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for
\ncorroboration.\t If for some reason the court is hesitant to place
\nimplicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for
\nevidence  which may lend assurance  to her testimony short of
\ncorroboration required in the case of an accomplice.   The nature of
\nevidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the
\nprosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case.  But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of
\nfull understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her
\nevidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not
\ntrustworthy.   If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the
\nrecord of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a
\nstrong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court
\nshould ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.\t  We
\nhave, therefore, no doubt in our minds that ordinarily the evidence
\nof a prosecutrix who does  not lack understanding must be
\naccepted.   The degree of proof required must not be higher than is
\nexpected of an injured witness.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  State of H.P.  vs.\tLekh Raj   (2000) 1SCC 247, this Court held that
\n“the hypertechnicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest
\nthe court of its responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the
\nconclusion regarding the existence  or otherwise of a particular circumstance
\nkeeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the social position of the victim
\nand the accused, the larger interests of the society particularly the law and order
\nproblem and degrading values of life inherent in the prevalent system.\tThe
\nrealities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for arriving
\nat the truth.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Rajasthan vs. N.K.<\/a>\t(2000) 5 SCC 30,  this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a
\nvictim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime.
\nThere is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without
\ncorroboration in material particulars.\t Her testimony has to be
\nappreciated on the  principle of probabilities just as the testimony of
\nany other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown
\nto exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge.
\nHowever,  if the court of facts may find it difficult to accept the
\nversion of the prosecutrix on  its face value, it may search for
\nevidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to
\nher testimony.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is well settled that in rape cases the conviction can be solely based on
\nthe evidence of the  victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in the
\nmind of the court.   The victim is not treated as accomplice, but could only be
\ncharacterised  as injured witness.   It is also reasonable to assume that no
\nwoman would  falsely implicate a person in sexual offence as the honour and
\nprestige of that woman also would  be at stake.\t  However, the evidence of the
\nprosecution shall be cogent and convincing and if  there is any supporting
\nmaterial  likely to be available, then the rule of prudence requires that evidence of
\nthe victim may be supported by such corroborative material.\n<\/p>\n
   Unfortunately,  the broad probabilities  of the case were  not considered
\nby  the\t Sessions  Court or the High Court in the instant case.\t   Ms. X, though
\nasserted that she  had\tsustained scratch  injuries by nails and biting,  her
\nmedical examination  did not reveal any such injuries.\t It is true that in view of
\nsocial conditions prevalent in India, there may be delay in giving the first
\ninformation of such an offence to the police.\tA rape victim  may think seriously
\nbefore giving the information to the police about rape as the onslaught of a social
\nstigma may haunt her for  life.\t Though the delay as such is not serious, but
\nwhile considering broad probabilities of the case, the delay in giving the
\ninformation to the police, in  the instant case, also  assumes some importance.
\nThough the past\t conduct of the prosecutrix is an irrelevant matter, in the instant
\ncase, Ms. X asserted that she was a virgin till the alleged incident, but the
\nmedical evidence supported by her physical features revealed that she was
\nhabituated to sex.    All these factors cast a serious doubt on the prosecution
\ncase.\tThough there is no   apparent  motive for Ms. X to falsely  implicate the
\nappellant, it may be  that Ms. X must have changed her mind when she came to
\nknow that others must have come to know of her conduct.\t  So there are so many
\nloose ends in the prosecution case.    On a consideration of the broad
\nprobabilities of the case, we feel that various factors cast a serious\tdoubt about
\nthe genuineness of the case of Ms. X that she had been forcibly ravished by the
\nappellant.   The  appellant is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt.    Therefore,
\nwe set aside the conviction of the appellant under section 376 and 342 IPC and
\nallow his appeal.    The  appellant  was granted bail by this Court.   The bail
\nbonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 Author: K Balakrishnan Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 646 of 1994 PETITIONER: Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo RESPONDENT: State of Orissa DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/12\/2002 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & K.G. Balakrishnan. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-18T16:52:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-18T16:52:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3860,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-18T16:52:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-18T16:52:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-18T16:52:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002"},"wordCount":3860,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002","name":"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-18T16:52:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhansu-sekhar-sahoo-vs-state-of-orissa-on-18-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa on 18 December, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}