Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Of Six Persons In 1996 Double Murder Case, Orders Them To Surrender After 15 Yrs Of Bail

Almost three decades after two persons were allegedly murdered in the district of Kendrapara by a mob of nine men and 15 years after the accused persons were enlarged on bail, the Orissa High Court on Monday (August 11) upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court in the year 1998 and ordered six convicts (other three convicts having died in the meantime) to surrender in order to serve out the life sentence imposed on them.Confirming the orders of conviction as well as sentence passed by the trial Court, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash ordered –“They shall surrender before the learned trial Court within fifteen days from today to serve out the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court which is confirmed by us, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take appropriate steps for their arrest and send them to judicial custody.”The unfortunate case emanated from a trivial issue involving demand of repayment of a meagre amount of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand). To put briefly, the first deceased (D-1) had lent out the said money to the second accused (A-2). When D-1 asked for the repayment of the money, an altercation ensued between him and A-2.On the fateful day, i.e June 19, 1996, A-2 came to the house of D-1 and asked him to come to a village temple to receive the money. Accordingly, D-1 accompanied by D-2 (brother-in-law of D-1) proceeded towards the temple. However, before they could barely reach their destination, A-2 along with other accused persons allegedly attacked both the deceased brutally, giving fatal injuries by means of several deadly weapons.The incident was claimed to be witnessed by several family members (of the deceased persons) and co-villagers, who shifted both the injured to hospital. Unfortunately, D-2 succumbed to his injuries on the way. Though D-1 was admitted in the hospital, he could not survive for long. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302, 326, 307 and 149 of the IPC.Upon conduct of trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in the year 1998, found the nine accused persons guilty for the cold-blooded murder of both the deceased persons. While four of the accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC, the rest five were convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Being aggrieved, they preferred this appeal.The prosecution case was mainly challenged on the following fronts, viz., (i) delayed dispatch of FIR to the Court by the police; (ii) lack of detailed account of the incident in the FIR; (iii) eye-witnesses being relatives and non-examination of independent witnesses; (iv) discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence; (v) Defects/laches by the IO as to preparation of spot map, non-recording of dying declaration etc; (vi) non-examination of forensic expert; and (vii) lack of evidence as to meeting of minds.At the outset, the Court perused the post-mortem report to satisfy itself of the homicidal nature of the deaths. So far as the delayed dispatch of FIR to the trial Court was concerned, the Bench noted that the same was dispatched the very next day of its registration. Not only that, it was placed before the SDJM on the very same day who put his signature on its pages with date. Further, no question was ever put to the IO regarding delayed dispatch of FIR to find out probable foul-play.Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court also held that the informant (father of D-1) was not in a state to remember and narrate each and every detail in the FIR given the critical condition of his son. Furthermore, it was reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopaedia which must contain every minute detail of prosecution case.The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants regarding non-examination of independent witness was also discarded by the Court. Also, it was of the view that mere examination of related witnesses cannot weaken the prosecution case as 'related witnesses' are not necessarily 'interested witnesses'. They would rather hesitate to screen actual culprit in order to implicate innocent persons. Moreover, the crime being committed near their house, they were held to be natural witnesses.Though vehement contentions were made to highlight discrepancies between ocular evidence vis-à-vis medical evidence, but such submissions were nixed by the Court by observing –“Since the medical evidence does not make the ocular testimony improbable or rules out all possibility of the ocular testimony being true, the ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved. There are neither any material exaggerations nor contradictions which create doubt about the substratum of the prosecution case.”Regarding lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the Court said –“Law is well settled that laches on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be fatal to the prosecution case where ocular testimony is found credible and...

Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Of Six Persons In 1996 Double Murder Case, Orders Them To Surrender After 15 Yrs Of Bail

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags