Orissa High Court
Ratnalu Omprakash vs State Of Odisha & Others on 26 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPCRL No.145 of 2013
Ratnalu Omprakash .... Petitioner
Mr.J.R.Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Mrs. Saswat
Pattnaik,AGA
Mr.Ch.S.Mishra,AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 26.04.2023
22 1.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction
from this Court for reinvestigation of the case with
respect to murder of his son Rahul Siba Prasad.
4. The facts of the case in short is that on 20.03.2012 one
Rajesh Gajibili and Dillip Gajibili came to the house of the
petitioner at about 9 P.M. .At that time the electric current
was cut off. His wife along with his son was present in
Page 1 of 6
// 2 //
the house. They called his son Siba Prasad outside and
killed him at a deserted place of the village and hanged
him in a tree in a suicidal posture due to his love affairs
with one girl namely, Gajibili Yastsna of the same village.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
submitted by one Gajibili Rajesh Kumar who tried to
twist the fact narrating the deceased as lunatic as he was
in relationship with the girl. It is further submitted that
the deceased was a driver of the heavy vehicles and had
a reasonably good physique with sound mind. The
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the
Police is not the statement of the petitioner's father rather
the police has written many things not stated by him.
Finding oblique motive of the of the opposite party No.4/
the Inspector In-charge of Shashikhal Police Station, the
petitioner informed it to opposite party No.3/ the
Superintendent of Police for speedy action. But, despite
due information filed on 28.03.2012 the said opposite
party did not take any step on it.
6. On perusal of the materials available in the case diary it
reveals that there are some infirmities especially with
respect to 161 statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
by the deceased's father that this case has turned out to
Page 2 of 6
// 3 //
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.
7. In view of the above infirmities, it seems that there
have been a lot of mismatch between 'is' and 'ought' in
the said process of recording of evidence.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
death took place in the year 2012. The case was filed in
the year 2012, it was listed before this Court on
30.01.2013 and notice was issued on 09.04.2013. Since
then the matter was not listed. Further it was listed on 5th
July, 2022 which is after more than a decade. It seems that
the case of the petitioner has not been listed for such a
long time.
4. Learned counsel for the State objected the submission
of transferring the matter to any other agency since the
matter has already been more over than a decade old and
even if some infirmities are there, the said Investigating
Agency may not be able to conduct proper reinvestigatin
due to wear and tear of many evidences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Supreme
Court's judgment in case of Pooja Pal Vrs. Union of
Page 3 of 6
// 4 //
India in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2016 wherein it has
been held that even if there is strangulation, nothing bars
to pass order for denovo enquiry. If the enquiry is not
done properly or any kind of doubt is created this
becomes a fit case for a re-investigation. The relevant
Paragraphs 95 and 96 of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder are quoted herein below for better
appreciation.
95. In the wake of the above, we are
unhesitatingly inclined to entrust the CBL
with the task of undertaking a de novo
investigation in the incident of murder of Raju
Pal, the husband of the appellant as afore-
mentioned. Though a plea has been raised on
behalf of the respondent Nos: 4 and 5 in
particular that this incident has been exploited
by the appellant for her political gains, we are
left unpersuaded thereby, as her achievements
in public life must have been fashioned by
very many ponderable as well as
imponderable factors. In any view of the
matter, such a contention, in our view, is of no
consequence or relevance. We would,
however make it abundantly clear that this
direction for entrustment of the investigation
to the CBI anew has been made in view of the
exceptional features of the case as
overwhelmingly demonstrated by attendant
facts and circumstances indispensably
necessitating the same.
// 5 //
96. 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
disenter 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 countrys premier
and distinguished investigating agency. On
receipt of the report by the CBI only, the trial
court would proceed therewith in accordance
with law and conduct and conclude the trial
expeditiously and not later than six months.
The interim order staying the ongoing trial is
hereby made absolute.
6. In such view of the matter, the matter be handed over
to the Crime Branch for a denove investigation of the
matter and the said Crime Branch will complete the
investigation as early as possible preferably within a
period of six months from today.
7. The WPCRL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
// 6 //
LB
