‘Serious irregularities’ in trial court order: HC quashes death penalty in minor’s rape-murder case
Cuttack: Orissa high court has quashed the conviction and death sentence given by a lower court in the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl and ordered a fresh trial on grounds of “serious procedural irregularities”.
The incident had occurred in Sundargarh district on Oct 21, 2016. Additional district judge-cum-presiding officer, special Pocso court (Sundargarh), Mahendra Kumar Sutradhar, convicted the accused and imposed the death sentence on Oct 19, 2023. The state govt had then sent the order to the HC for confirmation.
While disposing of the case on Wednesday, the two-judge bench of Justices Chittaranjan Dash and B P Routray said, “In view of cumulative effect of the serious procedural irregularities, this court is of the considered opinion that a fresh trial is the only course available in the present case.”
“Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the convict are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a de novo (fresh) trial from the stage of framing of charges,” the HC ordered and directed the trial court “to conduct the trial expeditiously and conclude it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there be no legal impediment”.
While pulling up the trial court for “serious procedural irregularities”, the HC observed that it failed to put each material circumstance distinctly and separately to the accused during examination. The questions posed were excessively long, aggregated and vague, covering multiple facts simultaneously, which deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to respond. Such lapses amount to a serious irregularity, capable of vitiating the trial, the bench said.
The bench also remarked that the sentencing process lacked due diligence and procedural compliance, especially expected in a death penalty case. There was no independent or substantive hearing on the sentence, and the conviction and sentencing were conducted on the same day. Mitigating factors such as the accused’s background, mental health and post-conviction conduct were not considered, violating the law laid down for such cases.
“The procedural safeguards are not ornamental; they are constitutional imperatives designed to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done,” the HC observed.
The bench noted a perfunctory and mechanical conduct of the trial, undermining the right to a fair trial and absence of due process that reflected a gross abdication of judicial responsibility, especially given the gravity of the alleged offences.
“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 HC observed and emphasised that “courts must remain ever vigilant to uphold the constitutional guarantee of fairness, diligence, and due process at every stage of the proceedings”.
The incident had occurred in Sundargarh district on Oct 21, 2016. Additional district judge-cum-presiding officer, special Pocso court (Sundargarh), Mahendra Kumar Sutradhar, convicted the accused and imposed the death sentence on Oct 19, 2023. The state govt had then sent the order to the HC for confirmation.
While disposing of the case on Wednesday, the two-judge bench of Justices Chittaranjan Dash and B P Routray said, “In view of cumulative effect of the serious procedural irregularities, this court is of the considered opinion that a fresh trial is the only course available in the present case.”
“Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the convict are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a de novo (fresh) trial from the stage of framing of charges,” the HC ordered and directed the trial court “to conduct the trial expeditiously and conclude it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there be no legal impediment”.
While pulling up the trial court for “serious procedural irregularities”, the HC observed that it failed to put each material circumstance distinctly and separately to the accused during examination. The questions posed were excessively long, aggregated and vague, covering multiple facts simultaneously, which deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to respond. Such lapses amount to a serious irregularity, capable of vitiating the trial, the bench said.
The bench also remarked that the sentencing process lacked due diligence and procedural compliance, especially expected in a death penalty case. There was no independent or substantive hearing on the sentence, and the conviction and sentencing were conducted on the same day. Mitigating factors such as the accused’s background, mental health and post-conviction conduct were not considered, violating the law laid down for such cases.
“The procedural safeguards are not ornamental; they are constitutional imperatives designed to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done,” the HC observed.
The bench noted a perfunctory and mechanical conduct of the trial, undermining the right to a fair trial and absence of due process that reflected a gross abdication of judicial responsibility, especially given the gravity of the alleged offences.
“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 HC observed and emphasised that “courts must remain ever vigilant to uphold the constitutional guarantee of fairness, diligence, and due process at every stage of the proceedings”.
