Orissa High Court Orders Fresh Crime Branch Probe Into Decade Old Alleged ‘Honour Killing’ Case

The Orissa High Court has recently ordered fresh investigation by the Crime Branch into over a decade old ‘honour killing’ of a man in Rayagada district. While handing over the responsibility to the agency, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi said,

“On perusal of the materials available in the case diary it reveals that there are some infirmities especially with respect to statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the deceased’s father that this case has turned out to be a case of suicide. Petitioner finds that there are a lot of disjoints in the prosecution’s investigation. However, the signature of the petitioner is not there and he is also not agreeable what has been written in the said statement.”

On 20.03.2012 one Rajesh Gajibili and Dillip Gajibili came to the house of the petitioner at about 9 P.M. His wife along with his son was present in the house at that time. They called his son Siba Prasad outside and allegedly killed him, at a deserted place of the village and hanged him in a tree to cover it as a suicide, due to his love affairs with one girl.

One FIR was submitted by one Gajibili Rajesh Kumar who allegedly tried to twist the fact narrating the deceased as lunatic as he was in relationship with that girl. It was submitted that the deceased was a driver of the heavy vehicles and had a good physique with sound mind.

It was alleged by the petitioner that the statement under section 161 CrPC recorded by the police is not his statement rather the police wrote a number of things which are not stated by him.

Finding oblique motive of the Inspector In-charge of the Police Station, the petitioner informed it to the Superintendent of Police for speedy action. But he did not take any step on it. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach the High Court.

After going through the case diary, the Court was of the view that there are some infirmities especially with respect to statement made under Section 161 CrPC by the deceased’s father that this case has turned out to be a case of suicide.

The Court also noted that the petitioner found a number of lacunae in the prosecution’s investigation. However, the signature of the petitioner is not there and he is also not agreeable what has been written in the said statement

“In view of the above infirmities, it seems that there have been a lot of mis-match between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ in the said process of recording of evidence,” the Court observed.

However, the State objected to transfer the matter to any other investigating agency for re-investigation since the matter has already been more over than a decade old. It contended, even if some infirmities are there, the investigating agency may not be able to conduct proper re-investigation due to wear and tear of many evidences.

Notwithstanding the above submission, the Court relied on Pooja Pal v. Union of India, wherein it was held that nothing bars to pass order for de novo enquiry even at a belated stage, if the enquiry is not done properly or any kind of doubt is created. The Supreme Court therein observed,

“We are aware that in the meantime, over a decade has passed. The call of justice however demands, that the CBI in spite of the constraints that it may face in view of the time lag, would make all possible endeavours to disinter the truth through its effective and competent investigation and submit the same before the trial court, as early as possible preferably within the period of six months from today. The clarion call of justice expects a befitting response from the country’s premier and distinguished investigating agency.”

Having regard for the aforesaid, the Court ordered the matter to be handed over to the Crime Branch for de novo investigation and directed it to complete the investigation as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.

Case Title: Ratnalu Omprakash v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: WPCRL No. 145 of 2013

Order Dated: April 26, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J.R. Dash, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Ms. Saswata Pattnaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 54