E-Paper
Odisha police asked to reinvestigate after minister’s name allegedly dropped from chargesheet
A protest petition was moved by the son of the deceased alleging that the minister’s name was dropped from the chargesheet.
More than 8 months after a 75-year-old BJP leader and his 81-year-old associate were hacked to death by people allegedly close to the ruling Biju Janata Dal, a judicial magistrate in Odisha’s Cuttack district ordered the police to do a fresh probe after law minister Pratap Jena’s name was dropped from the chargesheet, officials said.
The judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) of Salipur in Cuttack district in his order said the investigating officer of the case in Mahanga police station has to do a thorough investigation following a protest petition of the son of the deceased that alleged that the minister’s name was dropped from the chargesheet.
“Once conscience of the court is satisfied from the materials on record that the police have not investigated properly or apparently are remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with the law,” the magistrate said in his order citing a Supreme Court judgement which said if the police do not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or are remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the plea that investigation is an exclusive prerogative of police.
On January 2 evening, Kulamani Baral, 75, and in-charge of Salepur mandal of BJP and former chairman of Mahanga panchayat Samiti was hacked to death along with his 80-year-old associate Dibyasingh Baral near Jankoti village while they were coming home on a motorcycle. The duo received grievous injuries on their face and chest. While Kulamani succumbed to the death on the spot, Dibyasingh died while undergoing treatment at the SCB Medical College and Hospital in Cuttack the next morning. Baral was allegedly raising his voice against the alleged involvement of BJD leaders in the appropriation of PMAY houses meant for poor people
Following FIR by Baral’s son, police had booked law minister Pratap Jena and 12 others in the case. The body of Prafulla Biswal, the prime accused in the case, was found on a road in Tangi area more than a month later under mysterious circumstances.
After the police dropped the law minister’s name from the chargesheet, Biswal’s son had lodged a complaint case against the law minister before the JMFC alleging that the investigation done was perfunctory as police completely overlooked the allegation against Jena.
Baral’s son Ramakanta, who filed the case, alleged that even when the law minister’s name was in the FIR and his statement under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) the investigating officer did not examine material witnesses and wrongly recorded the statement of witnesses to shield him.
The police investigating officer in his charge-sheet had said that the Call Detail Records of all the accused persons were verified regarding receipt of any calls from Pratap Jena but there were no such calls.
However, citing the SC judgement on Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal Nos. 478-479 of 2017), in which the apex court said, “the ultimate aim of all investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the magistrate is to ensure that those who have actually committed a crime are correctly booked,” the JMFC said it is the magistrate who has to decide whether on the basis of the record and documents produced, an offence is made out or not.
“It is the judicial conscience of the magistrate which has to be satisfied with reference to the record and the documents placed before him by the investigating agency, in coming to the appropriate conclusion in consonance with the principles of law. It will be a travesty of justice, if the court cannot be permitted to direct “further investigation” to clear its doubt and to order the investigating agency to further substantiate its charge-sheet,” the JMFC order said.
While BJP leader and senior advocate Pitambar Acharya demanded that Jena should resign in light of the court’s observation, the law minister refused to comment on the court order.
