‘Lacked Qualities Of Uncle, Tortured & Committed Gruesome Murder’: Orissa High Court Confirms Life Term Of Man Convicted For Killing Niece

The Orissa High Court on Tuesday confirmed the term of life imprisonment imposed upon a man for taking multiple nude photos of his niece, subsequently killing her and burning her face to conceal identity.Denying any relief to the accused-appellant for the ghastly crime, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed,“Who can forget the beautiful lines from Hindi song, ‘Chanda Mama Se Pyara Mera Mama...Meri Ankhon Ka Tara Mera Mama.’ The appellant lacked the qualities of an uncle, made pious relationship ugly, spoiled the life of the deceased niece, tortured her and ultimately committed her gruesome murder.”A dead body of a woman, aged about nineteen to twenty-five years, was recovered from a cashew nut farm on 19.02.2003. The face of the body was burnt for which it could not be identified. Receiving such information, the Tangi Police registered an FIR and took up investigation.During the course of investigation, the police came to know that the appellant was absent from his duties from the previous night i.e. 18.02.2003. The police could trace his whereabouts and apprehended him on 08.04.2003.From the investigation, it could be ascertained that the appellant took the dead body of the deceased in an Ambassador car to his village on the night of 18/19.02.2003. However, as the sister of the appellant (mother of the deceased) refused to accept the dead body, he disposed of the same by throwing it in a cashew nut orchard after burning its face.Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant as well as the driver of the Ambassador car under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. After referring to oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302/201, IPC.Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the appellant approached the High Court filing this jail criminal appeal.Court’s ObservationsThe Court noted that there is no direct evidence available on record to link the appellant to the crime and the entire case rests upon certain circumstantial evidence. It listed down as many as eleven possible circumstances and discussed the evidence on record to prove/disprove the same respectively.By referring to the medical opinion of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the Court could come to a definite conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal. After getting proof of homicidal death, the Court pointed out the testimonies of some witnesses who proved that the deceased was last residing with the appellant at his official quarters.The Court noted that on the night of occurrence, the deceased knocked at the door of the office room where one of the witnesses was sleeping and requested him to let her stay with him in that office. But such request was turned down as the said witnesses did not want to allow a girl stay with him alone in that room.The Bench made reference to the statement of the mother of the deceased who stated about the fact that the appellant had brought the dead body of the deceased, which was marked with multiple injuries, in an Ambassador car on the fateful night. The Court also referred to the statements of three witnesses who had stated that in that night, the appellant demanded spade and kerosene from them. When they enquired as to why he needs those items so late in the night, he disclosed that he intends to dispose of the dead body of his niece.Apart from the above, the fact that the appellant absconded and did not attend his duty from that day was taken up as a relevant factor. Further, when he was arrested, he led the police to his official quarters from where the weapons of offence were recovered along with nude photos of the deceased.Considering all the above circumstantial evidence, the Court was of the considered view that:“…it makes the chain so complete that it unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant and it further indicates that it is the appellant and none else who after committing murder of the deceased caused disappearance of the evidence with the intention of escaping from legal punishment.”Accordingly, the order of conviction under Sections 302/201 of the IPC as well as punishment imposed thereunder on the appellant were upheld. Case Title: Debendra Singh v. State of Odisha Case No.: JCRLA No. 13 of 2005Date of Judgment: October 17, 2023Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Akhaya Kumar Beura, Amicus Curiae Counsel for the State: Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, Addl. Standing CounselCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 109Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

‘Lacked Qualities Of Uncle, Tortured & Committed Gruesome Murder’: Orissa High Court Confirms Life Term Of Man Convicted For Killing Niece

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags