'Draupadi's Humiliation Set Stage For War': Orissa High Court Alters Conviction In 1994 Murder Case Linked To Insult Of Girl

The Orissa High Court has altered the murder conviction of six persons under Section 302, IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II, IPC for causing death by fatal assault of a man, who registered protest against misbehaviour meted out by one of the accused to his daughter.Ruling out intention on the part of the appellants for causing murder, Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked –“A trivial incident of passing lewd comments to a girl during video show in the village followed by protest by the family members of the girl escalated into an uncalled for tragic scenario of murder of girl's father. Glaring examples are there in scripture when the game of dice and subsequent humiliation of Draupadi stood out as a pivotal incident that irrevocably set stage for Kurukshetra War.”On August 22, 1994, some children belonging to the village of the deceased had arranged a video show near a mandap. While children congregated at the place for witnessing the show, one of the accused persons passed certain libidinous comments targeting the daughter of the deceased. The girl informed his uncle about the incident, who in turn asked the father of such accused to settle the matter.In the evening hours of the following day, a meeting was called in the village to amicably settle the matter but the same could not fructify as a quarrel ensued between the uncle of the girl and the accused. As a result of the tussle, some people came in support of the accused and threw brick bats towards the house of the informant. They also held a meeting in the night and on the morning of August 24, 1994, they ransacked the house of the informant apart from causing other damage.Sensing danger to his life, the deceased took shelter in another house. However, the accused persons traced him out and dragged him to a nearby paddy field, where they assaulted him by means of deadly weapons. As a result of such fatal attack, the deceased succumbed to his injuries and the accused persons threw his corpse on the paddy field itself.An FIR was registered and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the six appellants along with other sixty-four (64) accused persons. Though other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges, the appellants along with another accused person (now dead) were held guilty for commission of offences under Sections 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 302 (punishment for murder)/149 (liability of members of unlawful assembly) of the IPC.While hearing the appeal preferred by the six appellants, the Court examined the evidence on record to satisfy itself of the nature of death. In view of the findings of the inquest report, post-mortem report as well as the evidence of the doctor, it was clear that the deceased met with a homicidal death.Delay in examination doesn't make testimony unreliableThe prosecution cited three eye-witnesses to establish culpability of the appellants. The testimony of one of such eye-witnesses was assailed on the ground of delay in examination. However, by relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1978) and Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2012), the Court held that mere delay in examination of witness during investigation does not render his/her testimony unreliable.“It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness, the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the Court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason not to accept the version and rely on it if it is trustworthy,” it added.Therefore, the testimony of the witness was held to be admissible and reliable in addition to the evidence adduced from the other two eye-witnesses. Apart from that, the evidence of four other witnesses was found to be corroborative of the version rendered by the eye-witnesses. Thus, the Court was satisfied that the appellants being armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly, chased the deceased and assaulted him with the weapons as a result of which his death occurred.“Scrutinising the evidence cautiously, we found that it is not a case of mere presence of the appellants in the unlawful assembly as members of the unlawful assembly or as curious spectators but it indicates their participation in the commission of the offence by overt act or knowing that the offence which was committed was likely to be committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and that they becoming or continuing to remain members of the unlawful assembly and their participation by the overt act is satisfactorily established,” it observed.No intention to cause...

'Draupadi's Humiliation Set Stage For War': Orissa High Court Alters Conviction In 1994 Murder Case Linked To Insult Of Girl

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags