“Every Sinner Has A Future”: Orissa High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted By Trial Court For Rape & Murder Of 6-Yr-Old Girl

The Orissa High Court, on Monday, commuted the capital punishment awarded to a man who was convicted by the trial court for committing rape and murder of a 6-year-old girl in 2018. However, the Court rejected such contention observing that: “The appellant was a co-villager and he was a family man having wife and children and there was nothing on record that the appellant had any criminal antecedents in the past or he was a licentious person and therefore, not to raise any suspicion against the appellant in connection with the missing of the deceased was very natural on the part of P.W.5.” The Court also examined the evidence of the minor brother of the victim who gave minute details of the incident in a vivid manner. But the Court rejected this contention and observed: “…there was hardly any time on the part of P.W.4 to ascertain the appellant's role in the crime and therefore, non-mentioning of the name of the appellant as a suspect cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.18.” It was also argued for the appellant that there was an undue delay in sending the copy of the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses to the Court which was situated near the police station. “Mere delay in sending the statements of the witnesses already recorded to the Court while forwarding the accused would not make their evidence unacceptable unless something glaring is brought to the notice of the Court or proved otherwise that such statements were non-existent and subsequently crated and ante-dated.” It was also observed that non-sending of all the statements recorded while forwarding the appellant to the Court cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses examined to prove the 'last seen' of the appellant with the deceased even though it was an omission on the part of the investigating officer, who seemed to have remained busy in the investigation. When the evidence of P.W.7 is clinching, trustworthy and reliable and it has not been shattered in the cross-examination, the same cannot discarded on the ground of 'stock witness' without any specific material to that effect.” The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant absconded from the village immediately after the incident which is a relevant 'conduct' under the provision of Section 8 of the Evidence Act.