Orissa High Court upholds conviction of hostel superintendent for sexually abusing Class V tribal students, grants probation after 20 years

The appellant, who was the Headmaster of a primary school and Superintendent of its hostel for Adivasi students, was accused of compelling two Class V students to masturbate him inside a hostel room on several occasions in 2002.

The students complained to the School Committee President and thereafter to various administrative authorities; the matter was ultimately reported to the police on 5 August 2003, followed by investigation and submission of a charge-sheet.

The trial Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 294 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but convicted him under Section 355 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 500, with four months’ simple imprisonment in default.

The appeal had remained pending since 2005.

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code, based principally on the testimony of the two victim-students, was sustainable?

Whether, notwithstanding the conviction, the appellant deserved release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of undergoing the sentence imposed by the trial Court?

Whether a conviction followed by treatment under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act would attract statutory disqualifications?

The Court applied Section 355 IPC, which criminalises assault or use of criminal force with intent to dishonour a person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation.

It considered Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, under which a person convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life may, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the character of the offender, be released on probation of good conduct.

Section 361 CrPC requires the Court to record special reasons where an accused could have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act but is not so dealt with.

Relying on Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 540, the Court held that consideration of probation is a statutory obligation where its conditions are attracted, although grant of probation is discretionary; refusal must be supported by reasons.

The Court also relied on Pathani Parida v. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra, 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469, and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu v. State of Orissa, 2007 (Supp-II) OLR 250.

Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides that a person dealt with under Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification attaching to the conviction, subject to its statutory proviso.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the trial Court’s assessment of the evidence, particularly the consistent testimony of P.Ws. 5 and 6, the two victims.

The fact that the alleged acts occurred inside a closed room did not prevent reliance on their evidence, and the conviction under Section 355 IPC was therefore affirmed.

On sentence, however, the Court considered the occurrence’s age, the appeal’s pendency since 2005, the appellant’s advanced age, lack of criminal antecedents, and his settled and law-abiding life in the intervening period.

Applying Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the mandatory duty to consider probation recognised in Chellammal, the Court concluded that continued incarceration would serve no meaningful penological purpose.

The Court accordingly substituted the custodial consequence with release on probation for three months, subject to conditions.

It further clarified that, by virtue of Section 12, the conviction coupled with treatment under Section 4 would not, by itself, attract statutory disqualifications, subject to the proviso.

The conviction under Section 355 IPC was affirmed, while the sentence was modified: instead of undergoing imprisonment, the appellant was directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for three months upon executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety for the like amount, undertaking to appear and receive sentence if called upon, maintain peace and good behaviour, and remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer.

The Court also clarified the limited effect of the conviction on statutory disqualifications under Section 12 of the Act.

An honorarium of Rs. 7,500 was directed to be paid to the Amicus Curiae.