Orissa: The Orissa High Court recently acquitted a man who had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of his wife and newborn daughter in 1998. The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra granted the appellant the benefit of doubt, emphasizing the importance of adhering to strict legal procedures and requiring solid evidence for criminal convictions.
The case unfolded with the appellant impregnating the deceased, subsequently marrying her under the directives of the village panchayat. Later, the bodies of the wife and newborn were discovered in a well. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, citing charges under Sections 302, 315, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
During the appeal, the High Court scrutinized the post-mortem report, which confirmed the homicidal nature of the deaths. However, the court highlighted the fallacy in determining the exact time of death, cautioning that such calculations can only provide an approximate range due to considerable biological variations in individual cases.
The court further examined the “last seen theory,” which posits that the accused was last seen with the victim before the crime occurred. It noted that there was no evidence that the deceased communicated her whereabouts after leaving for the appellant’s village. Despite the mother of the deceased seeing them off at the bus stop, the court found no indication that the deceased informed her family of her new living arrangements. The bodies were discovered thirteen days after the couple left for the appellant’s village, and the post-mortem examination occurred three days after their recovery.
The court concluded that the approximate time of death, as indicated in the post-mortem report, could not be applied with mathematical precision. Stressing the lack of other evidence, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the last seen theory against the appellant or prove other circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
While acknowledging the gravity of the crime and the shocking deaths of the deceased and her newborn, the court expressed uncertainty about identifying the responsible party. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, leading to his acquittal from the charges.
The Hon’ble Court held that,
“It is borne out of the records that the deceased lady and her new born baby were made to meet with extremely painful deaths which shock the conscience of this Court, but it is still not clear as to who is responsible for such an abominable and ghastly crime. Though this Court has a bounden duty to render justice to those two innocent departed souls, but at the same time, the hands of justice are tied with the threads of strict procedures and proof that are needed to be followed while recording a conviction against a person. As long as someone’s innocence is not completely ruled out by way of established facts and evidence, this Court has no option but to be loath to put him behind the bars.”