The Orissa High Court at Cuttack has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by one Bablu Verma, who challenged his conviction and seven-year prison sentence for offences committed against a child below 12 years of age. Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, who heard the matter on 31st March 2026 and delivered the judgment on 22nd May 2026, found no reason to interfere with the trial court's findings.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to 9th July 2023. A door-to-door grinder mechanic arrived at a house in Niali, Odisha, ostensibly to repair a grinding machine. The victim - a girl born on 1st November 2014, making her eight years old at the time - and her younger sister were present inside the house while the homeowner stepped into the kitchen to prepare tea.
According to the prosecution, the accused entered the room where the child was present, dragged her, kissed her on the cheek and lips, and inserted his hand inside her clothing. The victim escaped and hid herself. Her mother, who is the informant in the case, lodged an FIR at Niali Police Station, registering Case No. 246 of 2023.
The accused was arrested the same day. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the Special POCSO Court at Cuttack convicted him under Sections 452, 354, and 354-A of the IPC along with Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Bablu Verma's counsel raised several challenges before the High Court. The defence pointed to contradictions - the victim had said in court that she was watching television, while her earlier recorded statement mentioned going to play on swings. The defence also questioned inconsistencies in where exactly the accused was apprehended, claimed that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, and argued that the Investigating Officer had a prior acquaintance with the victim's father, a journalist. It was submitted that the entire conviction rested on interested witnesses without independent corroboration.
The bench examined each of these contentions carefully. On the minor discrepancy about television versus swings, the court was direct:
"Such variations are natural in the testimony of a child witness and do not go to the root of the allegations levelled by the prosecution."
On the question of identity, the court noted that the victim had consistently called the accused "Bablu uncle" and that an independent witness (P.W.3) confirmed he was a known face who had visited the house for repairs on earlier occasions. The absence of a T.I. Parade, the bench held, does not create doubt when prior acquaintance already exists.
Regarding the allegation of finger insertion, the court agreed with the trial court's measured approach - since this specific act was absent from the victim's earlier recorded statement and was not backed by medical evidence, benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant on the more serious charges under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the court held firmly that this did not weaken the rest of the prosecution's case.
The bench also upheld the conviction under Section 452 IPC (house trespass), observing that the accused had entered a private room without authorisation after being permitted only into the verandah.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning, Justice Panigrahi dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence were affirmed in their entirety.
The compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded to the victim under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme also stands.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bablu Verma v. State of Odisha
Case Number: CRLA No. 508 of 2025
Judge: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Date of Judgment: 22nd May 2026
