Criminal Law Does Not Stop At Village Boundaries; Panchayats Cannot Suppress Child Sexual Abuse Complaints Or Broker Marriage Settlements: Orissa High Court

Calling the course of action taken in the matter, “deeply troubling”, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi noted that the moment an offence against a minor is alleged, the matter belongs before the law, not before a circle of ‘village arbiters’.

“What happened here reflects a familiar but dangerous pattern. A serious allegation is quietly drawn away from the legal system and placed before a village forum, where discussions revolve around family honour, reputation, and adjustment. In the process, the child’s grievance is treated as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a wrong to be answered in law. This Court is not unaware of the social realities in which many such incidents arise, particularly in rural communities where informal structures of authority often influence how disputes are handled. Yet recognition of those realities cannot extend to accepting them as substitutes for the law. To allow a criminal offence against a child to be absorbed into such informal arrangements would amount to a deeply disturbing inversion of the legal order”, the Bench observed.

“…This Court cannot treat such conduct lightly. A sexual offence against a minor is a grave crime. When a group of local notables sits in judgment and decides that the issue can be resolved through assurances of marriage, they behave as though the criminal law stops at the boundary of the village. The law does not recognise any such boundary. It must be remembered that no panchayat is a court of law. A Sarpanch does not exercise the authority of a magistrate, nor do village elders acquire jurisdiction over criminal offences merely by convening a meeting. The adjudication of crime belongs to the institutions of the legal system alone. When village bodies assume to themselves the task of deciding or ‘settling’ such allegations, they step beyond their lawful role and act in clear disregard of the authority of law”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate Satya Narayan Mishra appeared for the appellant and Gayatrii Patra, ASC appeared for the respondent.

According to the prosecution, the victim was about 17 years old in 2016 when the accused allegedly came to her house during the absence of her parents and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while threatening her not to disclose the incident.

The victim later informed her mother, following which a village meeting was convened where the accused allegedly admitted the incident. It was reportedly decided in the meeting that he would marry the victim after she attained majority.

Further it alleged that the accused continued visiting the victim and maintaining physical relations with her in the following years. After she became a major, the parties married on 12-05-2021 according to local customs. However, the marriage lasted only a few days before the accused left the matrimonial home.

The victim later alleged harassment by her in-laws and claimed that they attempted to kill her by suffocation while she was sleeping. She eventually lodged an FIR on 30-01-2024, nearly eight years after the initial incident.

The trial court convicted the accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and repeated rape but acquitted his parents of cruelty and intimidation charges due to lack of specific evidence.

Before the Court, the appellant argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to the long delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical corroboration, and reliance mainly on the testimony of the victim and her mother. It was also argued that the victim eventually married the accused, suggesting that the relationship was consensual.

The Court rejected these arguments, reiterating that the testimony of a prosecutrix can by itself sustain a conviction if it is credible and inspires confidence. It was also observed that delay in reporting sexual offences cannot be treated as fatal in every case, as victims often face social stigma, pressure from families or communities, and attempts at informal settlements.

It noted that the POCSO Act is a child-protection statute meant to safeguard minors, and its safeguards cannot be diluted by private arrangements or community compromises. “The law is also explicit about the duty of those who come to know of such offences. The POCSO Act requires that information regarding an offence against a child be reported to the police or the Special Juvenile Police Unit. The statute does not leave room for quiet compromises or informal handling. Those who choose to gather villagers and hush the matter up instead of reporting it place themselves in clear disregard of that duty. The authority that accompanies positions such as Sarpanch or panchayat member is not a licence to interfere with the criminal process. It exists to serve the community within the bounds of law. When that influence is used to suppress allegations of sexual exploitation of a child, it becomes something far removed from leadership”, the judgment read.

The bench further categorically noted, “...Those who occupy positions of leadership in a community must remember that their authority carries responsibility. A Sarpanch or village elder has no mandate to decide whether a crime against a child should reach the police. Their duty is to ensure that the law takes its course, not to obstruct it by convening meetings or brokering compromises within the village”.

While dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction under POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the Court directed that the judgment be forwarded to the district administration and police authorities to ensure sensitisation of village representatives. Authorities were asked to ensure that community functionaries understand that sexual offences against minors must be reported to the police and cannot be privately settled.

Cause Title: Sanat Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha CRLA No.1145 of 2025

Appearances:

Appellant: Satya Narayan Mishra, Advocate.

Respondent: Gayatrii Patra, ASC.

Click here to rea/download the Judgment