The Orissa High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man accused of deceiving a minor into believing she was lawfully married to him and later administering pills that caused her miscarriage. However, considering the significant passage of time since the crime occurred in 1991, the court granted him relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, while maintaining the conviction, directed that the accused, now 63 years old, be released on probation. The court noted,
“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 originated from a complaint filed by the victim’s father before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Anandpur. According to the complaint, the accused had placed a garland on the victim inside a temple, deceitfully leading her to believe that they were legally married. Under this impression, she began cohabiting with him and later became pregnant.
Upon learning about her pregnancy, the accused allegedly gave her certain pills, misleading her into believing they were vitamins meant to improve her health. However, these pills ultimately caused her miscarriage. The victim’s father then sought legal action against the accused, leading to his conviction.
The Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandpur, found the accused guilty under Section 493 (cohabitation by deceitfully inducing a belief in lawful marriage) and Section 313 (causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was sentenced accordingly but later appealed the decision in the Orissa High Court.
Court’s Observations and Legal Precedents
During the appeal, the High Court referred to important Supreme Court judgments that have clarified the scope of Section 493 IPC. One such case was Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand (2012), where the Supreme Court ruled that the offense under this section is established when a woman is deceived into believing she is lawfully married and cohabits with the man based on this false assumption. The court also cited Arun Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), which reaffirmed that formal proof of marriage is unnecessary. What matters is the deception that leads a woman to believe in a lawful marriage and then cohabit with the man.
The High Court closely examined the victim’s testimony. During cross-examination, she stated that the accused had garlanded her after sunset at the temple, making her believe they were legally married. Under this belief, she engaged in sexual relations with him and later realized she had become pregnant. She further testified that when she informed him of her pregnancy, he gave her some pills, falsely claiming they were vitamins to help her with weakness. Soon after taking the pills, she experienced vaginal bleeding, which resulted in a miscarriage.
The medical examination corroborated her claims. The doctor who examined the victim confirmed that she was in the process of pregnancy termination and found the product of conception present at her cervix. He also stated that pregnancy of about four months could be terminated using chloroquine tablets, which matched the victim’s allegations.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Cancelling Bail: Liberty Must Not Be Lightly Interfered
Considering the medical and testimonial evidence, the High Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s conviction. It observed, “This Court, after going through the evidence of the victim and the doctor, finds that the accused-appellant was rightly convicted.”
Grant of Probation
Although the conviction was upheld, the High Court considered the long passage of time since the crime took place. The incident occurred in 1991, and by now, more than three decades had passed. The court also took into account the age of the accused, who is now 63 years old. Given these factors, the court decided to grant him relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of imposing further imprisonment.
The court ordered, “This Court accordingly directs the appellant to appear before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandpur for his release under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
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
