SANTOSH KUMAR MAITY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the unique cases where the petitioner, an old man, seeks to quash the entire proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1058(A)/2000 (Trial No. 80(A) /2001 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Balasore invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. The said G.R. Case was initiated against the son of the petitioner Sidheswar Maity and the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C. It was alleged that the petitioner was not arrested and was shown as an absconder and the G.R. Case was split up and was committed to the Court of Sessions so far as his son Sidheswar Maity is concerned. He faced trial in S.T. Case No.54/166 of 2004/2001 and by judgment did. 18th June, 2005 has been acquitted. The petitioner has approached this Court solely on the ground that the local police is now trying to arrest him by executing the N.B.W. and he has no other way out but to approach this Court. To dispose of this case, it would be prudent to refer to the facts: The prosecution case is that one Rajendra Das Adhikari intimated the Police on 29.9.2000 that a decomposed/ exhumed body of an unknown female was found in his paddy field by one of his labourers, namely Prafulla Singh while Vie was spraying fertilizer. On the basis of such information U.D. Case No.21/ 2000 was registered in Basta Police Station and investigation commenced. During investigation inquest was made, the wearing apparels were seized, the body was identified to be that of Janaki Maity, W/o. Sidheswar Maity, the same was sent for autopsy and Sidheswar Maity was arrested. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against Sidheswar and his father, the present petitioner. However as the petitioner, according to the prosecution, was absconding the case was split up and Sidheswar faced the trial.

(2.) The defence case was that the deceased went to her father's house and since 14.9.2000 her whereabouts were not known. The accused took a further stand that he had reported the fact that his wife Janaki was missing before Police on 23.9.2000. The Prosecution in course of trial examined seven witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. Though according to the prosecution there was an eye-witness, the said witness was not examined. The seizure witnesses also did not mention anything in Court with regard to the seizure. The brother of the deceased Janaki who claimed to have identified the body was also not examined in Court. The confessional statements of accused said to have been recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act did not stand the scrutiny of the Court. That apart the prosecution failed to prove any motive for causing such death. Considering all these aspects and noticing the doubtful circumstances, and in the absence of clinching evidence the Court below acquitted the accused Sidheswar, the son of the present petitioner.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner as the main accused has already been acquitted, no fruitful purpose would be served by compelling the petitioner to face the rigours of the trial. That apart he is an old man and is ailing and great prejudice and harassment would be caused, if trial commences after lapse of six years. It is emphatically submitted and stated on solemnly affirmation that he was all along present and the prosecution, for the reasons best known, did not arrest him and submitted the charge-sheet shown him as an absconder. In the alternative according to the learned counsel for the petitioner scanning through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution in the sessions trial would lead to an irresistible conclusion that not an iota of material is available connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime and as such further continuance of the case would amount to abuse of process of law.