Orissa HC cautions courts against adopting casual approach to trial, sets aside death sentence

New Indian Express

26-04-2025

CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has called upon all trial courts to uphold the constitutional guarantee of fairness, diligence, and due process at every stage of the proceedings.
'Courts should 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. 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 division bench of Justices Chittaranjan Dash and BP Routray has remarked.
The observations were made as the bench quashed the conviction and death sentence awarded to the accused by a Special POCSO court in a case of rape and murder of a five-year-old girl. The incident was reported in Sundargarh district in 2016.
The Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer Special POCSO Court (Sundargarh) Mahendra Kumar Sutradhar convicted accused Sanjeeb Kerketta and imposed the death sentence on October 19, 2023. The death sentence order was then sent by the state government to the high court for confirmation.
The division bench of Justices Chittaranjan Dash and BP Routray quashed the conviction and death sentence on Wednesday. '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 bench ordered.
The high court upon a cumulative evaluation of the records found that the trial proceedings were afflicted by multiple and grave irregularities, including improper and inadequate examination under section 313 of the CrPC, failure to consider mitigating circumstances (such as the accused's background, mental health, and post-conviction conduct) at sentencing, and denial of a distinct and fair sentencing hearing.
Conviction and sentencing were conducted on the same day. Each of these deficiencies, standing alone, would be sufficient to occasion serious prejudice, the bench observed.
'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 bench observed and directed the trial court to ensure that the accused is afforded effective legal assistance, all prosecution witnesses are examined afresh, and that the accused is properly examined under section 313 of the CrPC, with each material circumstance put to him clearly, distinctly, and separately.