The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Sandeep Prabodh Kerketta BLAPL No. 13571 of 2023 ….. Petitioner Mr. Sourjya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate State of Orissa Vs. ….. Opposite Party Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 19.01.2024 Order No. 03. (Through hybrid mode) 1. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel files an appearance memo in Court today which is taken on record. 2. This is the fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. of the petitioner in this Court in connection with Nalco Township P.S. Case No. 131 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. (S) Case No. 02 of 2021 in the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul registered under Section 302 of IPC against the unknown persons. 3. BLAPL No. 3481 of 2021 and BLAPL No. 10539 of 2022 had been disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court. BLAPL No. 3481 of 2021 had been disposed of on 26.10.2021 .While refusing to grant bail to the petitioner, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of material witnesses and the doctor by the Page 1 of 9
Legal Reasoning
learned trial Court. In BLAPL No. 10539 of 2022 which was disposed of on 20.01.2023, while refusing to grant bail to the petitioner on merit, this Court granted him interim bail for a period of three months. As BLAPL No. 7541 of 2020 filed by the co –accused Benedict Alois Kerketta (father of the petitioner ) had been disposed of by me on 04.02.2021 , BL APL No. 5527 of 2023 filed by the petitioner was listed before me and had been disposed of on 14.07.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to move the learned trial court for bail afresh after cross examination of P.W 12 the doctor, as
Legal Reasoning
the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in CRLMC No 2858 of 2023, this Court had permitted cross- examination of P.W 12 who had not been cross examined by the defence earlier. BLAPL No. 2478 of 2021 filed by the co-accused Benedict @ Kerketta has been allowed by me on 29.09.2022. 4. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has thereafter been rejected vide order dated 16.11.2023 by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul, for which this application has been filed . 5. The copies of the depositions of P.W. 1 to P.W 21 have been filed alongwith a Memo by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 08.01.2024 .Copies of the same have been served on the learned State Page 2 of 9 Counsel . 6. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 19.07.2020 morning at about 5.00 A.M., the petitioner contacted his neighbors asking them to open the door of his quarter which had been locked from the outside. After the door was unlocked he went down stairs and then the deceased was found sitting on the road approaching the building. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Hospital by the petitioner where she was declared dead and suspecting it to be a case of suicide P.W 11, the Doctor on duty sent a MLC report to the Nalco Police Station for which Nalco P.S. U.D. Case No. 12 of 2020 was registered and enquiry was started. 7. As the post mortem examination report revealed the death to be homicidal, P.W 17 Sub-Inspector of Police, Nalco Police Station who was conducting the enquiry in the UD Case, lodged the F.I.R. on 14.09.2020 and Nalco Township P.S. Case No. 131 of 2020 case was registered under Section 302 of IPC against the unknown persons . The petitioner has been arrested on 15.09.2020. 8. Investigation revealed that the deceased and petitioner who were husband and wife were residing in a quarter inside Nalco Colony. The petitioner was serving in Nalco and the deceased was serving as a Manager, in Bank of India, Talcher. On 18.07.2020, the petitioner and the deceased along with their children and parents had gone to sleep in Page 3 of 9 the quarter of the petitioner. In the night some security guards had heard screams and shouts from the quarter. Next morning (on 19.07.2020) around 5.00 am, the petitioner had called his neighbor over telephone asking him to open the door to his quarter which was bolted from outside. After it was opened, they went down the stairs and found the deceased sitting at the bottom of the stairs. She was taken to the hospital by the petitioner and was declared dead. Chargesheet dated 19.12.2020 has been filed under Sections 302/34 of IPC against the petitioner and his father. 9. I have heard Mr. S.S. Das learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Senior Counsel for the State. The depositions of the witnesses have been placed by both the counsel. 10. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2020 and in the meanwhile 20 witnesses out of 31 charge sheet witnesses have been examined in the trial and the examination / cross-examination of P.W.21 the Investigating Officer is continuing. 11. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2020 and he had granted interim bail in BLAPL No. 10539 of 2022 and without misusing the liberty granted to him, surrendered on Page 4 of 9 time before the trial court. Referring to the depositions of the witnesses, he submits that no witness has stated that there was ever any ill-feeling between the petitioner and his wife - the deceased nor about any quarrel between them. His further submission is that the security guards P.W.13 and 14 who had stated in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C and examination in chief about hearing screams and sounds of quarrel from the quarter of the petitioner the previous night, on being recalled for cross-examination have deposed that they have stated so at the instance of the Police and the Public Prosecutor, so their evidence cannot be used against the petitioner. The petitioner had no reason to assault his wife or do away with her life. The petitioner was inside the quarter and its door was locked from outside and he called his neighbor P.W 1 Ranadeep Kar over telephone and he opened the door at about 5.30 am and the deceased was found sitting on the road approaching the building. The petitioner has promptly taken the deceased to the Hospital by the petitioner with the help of his neighbor P.W 8, where she was declared dead. The post mortem examination report and the evidence of P.W 12 the doctor who conducted post mortem examination reveal that a number of injuries had been sustained by the deceased petitioner, but such injuries are possible by a fall from the stairs and as the petitioner was inside his quarter which was locked from outside, the injuries on the deceased cannot be attributed to him. The family members of the Page 5 of 9 deceased have already been examined in the trial and they have not stated anything incriminating against the petitioner. He finally submits that the deceased had given birth to their second son 15 days before the occurrence and the children are left without care of their mother and since the petitioner is in custody they are also being deprived of the love and care of their father. The petitioner being an employee of NALCO, there is no chance of his absconding if he is released on bail , so the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be sympathetically considered. 12. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that in their statements recorded under Section – 161 Cr.P.C the neighbours of the petitioner and the security guards - P.W.13 and P.W. 14 have stated about hearing sounds of frequent quarrel from the house of the petitioner previously and sound of quarrel and scream of the deceased on the previous night. The effect of their statements during cross-examination on recall will be considered by the learned trial court during hearing of the case. The petitioner has given prevaricating statements about the cause of death of the deceased. He has informed the family members of the deceased - P.W 9 her sister, P.W.10 her father, P.W. 18 her mother, P.W.19 her brother-in-law and P.W.20 another brother-in-law that the deceased had committed suicide but informed his neighbours that she fell down Page 6 of 9 from the stairs and died. P.W.11 the doctor who first examined the deceased found a cut injury on her wrist which has been opined to be post mortem in nature by P.W 12 the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the victim. The postmortem report and the evidence of P.W 12 indicate that the victim has sustained 9 external injuries and 4 internal injuries and P.W.12 has deposed that the internal injuries are possible by repeated kick blows over the ribs and trampling over the ribs and that he had initially opined that the death was neither accidental or suicidal and later opined that it was homicidal. The conclusion of the Police is that the deceased was assaulted by the petitioner and she tried to escape after locking the door. Her ribs have been fractured due to assault and have lacerated the pleura, lungs and liver. He also submits that as the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and was staying in the same quarter with her and she was found in the morning on the ground floor and was declared dead when taken to the hospital, and her death is homicidal, he should not be released on bail. He finally submits that the value of the evidence of the witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case and the witnesses who initially supported the prosecution case but resiled from their statements during cross examination on being recalled, can be best considered by the trial court during hearing, after cross examination of P.W.21, the Investigating Officer is complete. Page 7 of 9 13. The nine external injuries include laceration over the left forearm, 3 c.m. below the elbow joint, bruise over the anterolateral aspect of the left forearm below the elbow joint, 3 lacerations over the ventral aspect of the left forearm middle part, abrasion on the left leg 2 c.m. below the knee joint , laceration over the right heel of the right foot posteriorly, four abrasions over the lateral aspect of right ankle, two lacerations over the lateral aspect of right elbow and one bruise over thenar eminence of right hand (inner portion of the palm below the right thumb). All the external injuries except the incised wound near the wrist joint, have been opined to be antemortem in nature. The cross-examination of P.W. 21 is admittedly in progress. The petitioner had given prevaricating statement regarding cause of death of the deceased. The effect of the evidence of the witnesses and their cross- examination will be considered by the learned trial court during hearing of the case. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the deceased was staying in the same quarter with him. On the date of occurrence, she was found below the stairs and was taken to the Hospital when she was declared dead and her death was homicidal. Trial is in progress and 20 witnesses have already been examined. 14. Considering the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased (who are husband and wife), the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased more so the injury over her wrist joint which has been Page 8 of 9 opined by the Doctor to be a post mortem injury, and as trial is in progress and only 10 out of 31 charge sheet witnesses remain to be examined, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 15. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. 16. As the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the trial expeditiously. 17. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. puspa (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 22-Jan-2024 20:02:55 Page 9 of 9