This story is from September 27, 2024

Trial court erred, says Odisha HC, frees man in murder case after 14 years

Kharjim Bandhu will be released after spending 14 years in prison for his ex-wife's murder as the Orissa High Court acquitted him and his father. The court found that the trial court failed to properly assess evidence. Bandhu's father had already received bail in 2015.
Trial court erred, says Odisha HC, frees man in murder case after 14 years
The Orissa High Court has acquitted Kharjim Bandhu and his father after finding that the trial court failed to properly assess evidence in a murder case involving Bandhu's ex-wife.
CUTTACK: Having spent 14 years in prison for killing his ex-wife, 43-year-old Kharjim Bandhu will finally walk out of jail after the Orissa high court on Wednesday acquitted him and his father of the crime after finding that the trial court had "failed to assess the evidence in its totality and arrived at an erroneous conclusion".
Bandhu's father, 71-year-old Kharjim Lachhna Rao got bail in 2015, but the former continued to remain in prison for the murder of Kharjim Kumari (25).
Kumari went missing from Sunki under Pottangi police station limits on June 2, 2008. Her divorced husband Bandhu and his father were arrested a month later after bones and pieces of clothing of a 25-year-old woman were found on the fringes of a forest in the area.
On Sept 14, 2010, the fast-track court of additional sessions judge, Jeypore, found the two guilty of killing Kumari and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On Dec 24, 2010, Rao and Bandhu filed a criminal appeal in the high court.
"While the high court had granted bail to the father on Mar 17, 2015, the son is still in custody," advocate Rabindra Nath Nayak, who represented the two, said.
'Evidence weak, forensic findings inconsistent'
While quashing the trial court order, the two-judge bench of Justice S K Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash said, "While the tragedy surrounding the disappearance and alleged death of Kumari evokes deep sympathy, the imperative in the administration of justice demands that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The courts must balance the gravity of the allegations with the sanctity of the legal process, ensuring that no individual is convicted based on inconclusive or insufficient evidence."
The bench said the evidence did not bring about a nexus between the criminal and the crime. The inability to identify the bones as Kumari's, coupled with weak evidence and inconsistencies in the forensic findings, raises doubts about the prosecution's story.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA