SC seeks govt response in Mahanga double murder case | Bhubaneswar News
Cuttack: Supreme Court on Friday accepted a special leave petition (SLP) challenging an Orissa high court judgment that quashed the order of the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC), Salepur, which took cognisance of offences against former minister and BJD member Pratap Jena as an accused in the Mahanga double murder case.
The two-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the state govt and posted the matter for consideration after four weeks, along with replies of the respondent. The bench also allowed Jena (who filed a caveat) to file a counter affidavit and the parties to place on record the statements of witnesses recorded by the courts of sessions judge as well as magistrate.
SC issued the notice on the SLP filed by Ranjit Kumar Baral, son of BJP member and then chairman of Mahanga block, Kulamani Baral, who was brutally killed along with his associate Dibyasingha Baral on Jan 2, 2021, while they were returning home on a motorcycle. Initially, a murder case was registered on the complaint filed by Ramakant Baral, elder son of Kulamani. After Ramakant’s death, his younger brother Ranjit renewed the complaint.
Ranjit challenged the HC’s Oct 1, 2024 order. The JMFC’s order issued on Sept 25, 2023, stated, “After going through the statements of the complainant, witnesses, and other available materials on record, it found that a prima facie case punishable for the offences under sections 302, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made against the accused Pratap Jena.”
Jena then challenged the order in HC on grounds of jurisdiction on Oct 31, 2023. While delivering the judgment on Oct 1, 2024, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said the JMFC’s order is not only unsustainable in the eye of law, but also the proceeding initiated against Jena is without jurisdiction as his name was added as an additional accused and he was not charge-sheeted even after two rounds of investigation. The court of sessions judge (trial court) had already assumed jurisdiction over the matter.
“It was the court of sessions who could have passed an order to add the petitioner as an additional accused, but the sessions court had neither invoked its power nor was it moved to arraign the petitioner as an additional accused,” Justice Satapathy said, adding, “In the interest of justice, the impugned order being unsustainable together with proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.”
On Aug 28, 2024, the court of additional sessions judge, Salipur convicted nine of the accused and awarded them life imprisonment. The court, however, acquitted accused Arabinda Khatua due to lack of evidence. The convicts included Panchanana Sethy, Kailash Chandra Khatua, Lalit Mohan Baral, Khitish Kumar Acharya, Chaitanya Sethy, Umesh Chandra Khatua, Bhikari Charan Swain, Malaya Kumar Barik, and Pramod Biswal.
The two-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the state govt and posted the matter for consideration after four weeks, along with replies of the respondent. The bench also allowed Jena (who filed a caveat) to file a counter affidavit and the parties to place on record the statements of witnesses recorded by the courts of sessions judge as well as magistrate.
SC issued the notice on the SLP filed by Ranjit Kumar Baral, son of BJP member and then chairman of Mahanga block, Kulamani Baral, who was brutally killed along with his associate Dibyasingha Baral on Jan 2, 2021, while they were returning home on a motorcycle. Initially, a murder case was registered on the complaint filed by Ramakant Baral, elder son of Kulamani. After Ramakant’s death, his younger brother Ranjit renewed the complaint.
Ranjit challenged the HC’s Oct 1, 2024 order. The JMFC’s order issued on Sept 25, 2023, stated, “After going through the statements of the complainant, witnesses, and other available materials on record, it found that a prima facie case punishable for the offences under sections 302, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made against the accused Pratap Jena.”
Jena then challenged the order in HC on grounds of jurisdiction on Oct 31, 2023. While delivering the judgment on Oct 1, 2024, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said the JMFC’s order is not only unsustainable in the eye of law, but also the proceeding initiated against Jena is without jurisdiction as his name was added as an additional accused and he was not charge-sheeted even after two rounds of investigation. The court of sessions judge (trial court) had already assumed jurisdiction over the matter.
“It was the court of sessions who could have passed an order to add the petitioner as an additional accused, but the sessions court had neither invoked its power nor was it moved to arraign the petitioner as an additional accused,” Justice Satapathy said, adding, “In the interest of justice, the impugned order being unsustainable together with proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.”
On Aug 28, 2024, the court of additional sessions judge, Salipur convicted nine of the accused and awarded them life imprisonment. The court, however, acquitted accused Arabinda Khatua due to lack of evidence. The convicts included Panchanana Sethy, Kailash Chandra Khatua, Lalit Mohan Baral, Khitish Kumar Acharya, Chaitanya Sethy, Umesh Chandra Khatua, Bhikari Charan Swain, Malaya Kumar Barik, and Pramod Biswal.
