Life Term for Man Who Killed 4 Yr Old in Odisha; POCSO Court Clears Sexual Assault Charge

A Special POCSO Court in Berhampur, Odisha has sentenced a 26-year-old man to life imprisonment for kidnapping and murdering a three-year-old boy inside his own house, holding that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court, however, acquitted him of charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, finding no conclusive proof of penetrative sexual assault.

The judgment was delivered by Pranati Pattanaik, Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Berhampur.

The Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 363 (kidnapping), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 10,000 for the offence of murder. For kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidence, he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment of seven years each with fines of Rs. 5,000 on each count. All sentences are to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, the child went missing from his home on the evening of January 24, 2023.

His father and other family members began searching for him and were informed that the child had last been seen near the house of the accused. When they reached the accused’s residence, the main door was found locked. After entering the premises, they discovered the minor lying inside with severe head injuries and bleeding profusely.

He was taken to hospital where doctors declared him dead.

An FIR was registered the same day under Sections 363, 377, 302 and 201 of the IPC along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused was arrested and charges were framed.

During trial, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses including the child’s father, mother, paternal uncle, medical officer and investigating officer. Several seizure witnesses and forensic experts were also examined.

The Court first examined whether the victim was a “child” under the POCSO Act. Relying on the Anganwadi Admission Register, which recorded the child’s date of birth as 07.05.2019, the Court held that he was three years, eight months and seventeen days old on the date of the incident and therefore squarely covered under the statutory definition.

The post-mortem examination revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries. The medical officer opined that the death was caused due to cranio-cerebral injuries and their complications.

The injuries were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The Court rejected the defence suggestion that the injuries could have resulted from an accidental fall, noting the nature and extent of trauma inflicted on a child of such tender age.

The prosecution case rested largely on circumstantial evidence. The Court relied on the presence of the accused inside the house at the time the child’s body was found, the recovery of the child’s clothing pursuant to the accused’s disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the forensic reports linking biological samples.

The Chemical Examination Report established that DNA profiles generated from blood-stained materials seized from the spot and the accused’s clothing matched the DNA profile of the deceased child.

The Court held that the forensic findings strengthened the prosecution case and formed a crucial link in the chain of circumstances.

While the prosecution had alleged that the accused committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature before murdering the child, the Court found no medical or independent evidence to conclusively establish penetration.

It observed that there were no injuries on the private parts of the child and that the medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation of sexual assault. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

On the charge of kidnapping, the Court held that the child had been taken out of the lawful guardianship of his parents without consent, as his body was recovered from inside the accused’s house where no other person was present.

The circumstances, the Court held, were sufficient to establish the offence under Section 363 IPC.

With respect to Section 201 IPC, the Court found that the accused had attempted to screen himself from legal punishment by throwing away the child’s pant in a solitary place, which was later recovered at his instance.

The disclosure and recovery were held admissible and proved.

The Court also noted certain lapses in investigation, including non-production of certain medical reports, but held that negligent investigation by itself could not be a ground for acquittal where other credible evidence established guilt.

During the sentencing hearing, the defence sought leniency on the ground that the convict was young and a first-time offender. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the offence, the murder of a child under four years of age warranted the harshest punishment. The Court held that no leniency was justified given the brutality of the act and imposed life imprisonment for murder.

The Court further recommended compensation of Rs.2,00,000 to the parents of the deceased under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, observing that the mental trauma suffered by them warranted financial support; A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority for compliance.

Case Title: State of Orissa v. Srikanta Sethi @ Sukanta Kumar Sethi

Court: Smt. Pranati Pattanaik, ADJ

Date of Judgment: 13.02.2026