Justice B.P. Routray, Justice Chittaranjan Dash, Orissa High Court
“Perfunctory, Mechanical & Constitutionally Impermissible” Trial: Orissa High Court Orders Fresh Trial in Minor's Rape-Murder, Sets Aside Death Sentence
|The Orissa High Court stated that the procedural safeguards during a trial are not just ornamental, but are constitutional imperatives designed to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
While remarking that the trial was conducted in a “perfunctory, mechanical, and constitutionally impermissible manner,” the Orissa High Court set aside the death sentence imposed on a man found guilty of the rape and murder of a minor girl and remanded the matter to the trial Court for de novo trial.
The Court took note of the “serious procedural irregularities” in the trial for the offences under Sections 450, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(A), 302 and 201 of the IPC and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court stated that the procedural safeguards during a trial are not just ornamental, but are constitutional imperatives designed to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
A Division Bench of Justice BP Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held, “The right to a fair opportunity to present mitigating factors is not a matter of procedure alone but touches upon the right to life itself under Article 21 of the Constitution. By rushing the sentencing proceedings without granting adequate time or opportunity to the defence, the trial Court undermined this basic safeguard, vitiating the sentencing process. Such an approach not only violates the rights of the accused but also undermines the constitutional commitment to fair trial standards that all courts are bound to uphold.”
AGA PS Nayak appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate P Mohanty represented the Condemned Prisoner.
Brief Facts
The Trial Court found the prosecution to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty and convicted him awarding the death sentence.
The Prosecution submitted that given the gruesome nature of the crime committed against a 5-year-old girl child, the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category, warranting the affirmation of the death penalty awarded by the Trial Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “Upon a cumulative evaluation of the record, this Court finds that the trial proceedings were afflicted by multiple and grave irregularities, including improper and inadequate examination under Section 313 CrPC, failure to consider mitigating circumstances at sentencing, and denial of a distinct and fair sentencing hearing. Each of these deficiencies, standing alone, would be sufficient to occasion serious prejudice. Taken together, they reveal a trial conducted in a perfunctory, mechanical, and constitutionally impermissible manner.”
The Bench noted that the accused's statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC was defective and inadequate. The Court stated that incriminating circumstances were not properly presented to the accused, which deprived him of the opportunity to provide an explanation and defence.
“The right to a fair trial is not the privilege of the accused but a right that is equally essential for the prosecution and, more importantly, for society at large, to ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done. The trial Court, therefore, was under an even greater obligation to ensure that the trial proceedings were conducted with the strictest regard to fairness and due process. Regrettably, the record reflects a complete abdication of that responsibility,” the Bench remarked.
The Court stated, “In cases of such grave nature, perfunctory manner of conducting the cases not only undermine the faith of the public in the criminal justice system but also risk irreparable miscarriage of justice. Such lapses strike at the heart of the right to a fair trial and cannot be countenanced. This Court is thus left with no alternative but to hold that the trial stands vitiated in its entirety.”
“This Court expects all the trial Courts to remain alive to the fact that the duty to conduct trials in accordance with the law becomes all the more heightened when dealing with allegations involving heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. A cavalier or casual approach to such trials not only imperils the rights of the accused but also erodes the legitimacy of the criminal justice system itself,” the Bench emphasised.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We do not approve of the trial conducted by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Special Court (POCSO), Sundargarh, in the instant case, with such fundamental lapses in dealing with matters of importance in a Sessions trial…Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the Convict are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for a de novo trial from the stage of framing of charges.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Application.
Cause Title: State of Odisha v. Sanjeeb Kerketta (DSREF No. 02 of 2023)