The Orissa High Court recently mandated that the State ensure adequate infrastructure and staffing for the Forensic Science Laboratories to facilitate their effective operation.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the Appellant was convicted of lurking house trespass with intent to commit rape on a physically disabled woman. The Trial Court, supported by the victim's testimony along with corroborative witness and medical evidence, found the Appellant guilty under Sections 454/376(2)(j)(l)/323 of the IPC. The Appellant has now preferred this jail criminal appeal against the judgment of the Learned Court below.
Contentions of the Appellant (Amicus Curiae):
It was argued that the Trial Court's handling of the victim, who was deemed unable to provide reliable testimony due to her abnormal condition of responding affirmatively to all questions, resulted in severe prejudice against the Appellant. It was highlighted that the Court did not record the victim's responses, leaving no verifiable material to demonstrate her comprehension or rationality in answering.
Additionally, deficiencies in the prosecution's case were pointed out, such as the absence of a witness and the lack of a chemical examination report for biological samples, arguing that these gaps justified extending the benefit of doubt to the Appellant.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was submitted that the incident took advantage of the victim's physical disabilities and the absence of her family members. The Appellant, a co-villager, initially fled when spotted but returned to commit the crime. Eyewitnesses, including the victim's family and neighbours, observed her in distress and identified the Appellant as the perpetrator.
It was argued that medical examination confirmed injuries consistent with recent sexual assault, and further medical evidence indicated the Appellant's capability for such an act. The comprehensive evidence from witnesses, medical reports, and the circumstances of the crime, supported the Trial Court's conclusion, advocating for the dismissal of the appeal due to no legal errors in the judgment.
Observations of the Court:
The Court closely examined the testimony of four witnesses who saw the victim in a distressed state, with the victim identifying the Appellant as responsible. The Bench noted a significant procedural oversight: biological samples and clothing from both the victim and Appellant were collected, but the vital chemical examination report was missing from the Trial records.
Justice Sahoo emphasized the importance of these reports in such cases, pointing to the requirements under Section 207 of the CrPC and Rule 50 of the General Rules & Circular Orders (Criminal) of the Orissa High Court that these reports be available before charges are framed.
The Hon’ble Bench further highlighted the serious judicial consequences of such omissions, which can severely impact the judicial process, and directed the Director of Public Prosecution to ensure that prosecutors secure these reports promptly.
Despite these procedural shortcomings, the Court found that the consistent witness testimonies and medical evidence were sufficient to confirm the Appellant's conviction, underscoring the need for procedural diligence to maintain the integrity of the justice system.
Additionally, the Bench stressed the critical role of timely chemical examination reports in criminal trials. It was noted the challenges in adjudicating cases when such reports are missing and emphasized the State's obligation to adequately support forensic laboratories.
Further, the Court observed that neglect in providing necessary infrastructure and staffing for forensic labs could jeopardize the rights and freedoms of numerous accused and victims, highlighting the necessity for these facilities to be well-equipped and adequately staffed to meet judicial demands effectively.
The decision of the Court:
The Court, noting the facts and circumstances of the case, upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 376(2)(j)(l). However, it reduced his sentence from 14 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, modifying the original judgment of the Trial Court.
Case Title: Muna @ Jagabandhu Bhoi v. State of Odisha
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.K Sahoo
Case No.: JCRLA No. 81 of 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. S.K. Baral
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Mr. Rajesh Tripathy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
