Sagar
Post News Network
Bhubaneswar, May 25: It could have been shoddy police investigation or the hostility of witnesses which led to acquittal of all four accused in Rakesh Nayak murder case, April 26.
A week later, the police told mediapersons they would appeal against the acquittals in the district court despite the cops doing their job properly. A closer look at the trial court’s judgment order, a copy of which is with Orissa POST, gives a different picture. The order showed mistakes committed by the investigative officer (IO) that proved all material and forensic evidence untrustworthy.
Rakesh Nayak (30) was shot August 22, 2012 by unknown gunmen while he was sitting on his parked bike with one of his friends near Ganganagar chhak past 9pm. Three bullets had hit him in his right shoulder that pierced through his lungs, said doctor Mamata Mohanty to the court.
Subrat Biswal, Rakesh’s companion, fled the spot and returned within two minutes to find Rakesh lying in a pool of blood. With the help of friend Suresh Sethi, Subrat rushed Rakesh to the Capital hospital which referred him to Ayush.
On the way to Ayush, Rakesh had succumbed to his injuries.
It was at 1:30am when police official RK Mahalik seized the bike from the crime scene, according to chargesheet submitted December 18, 2012. Mahalik arrested Bilu Nayak and Nilu Nayak August 23,2012. The two confessed to having killed Rakesh.
Mahalik also seized a gun buried near Bhimpur water tank under Airfield police limits on the basis of confession of Bilu and Nilu, the chargesheet said. A month later, in September, third accused Chitranjan Dalei alias Chitra was arrested. He gave information leading to the recovery of another pistol hidden in garbage near Capital hospital.
Fourth accused Sukanta Nayak who was in jail in connection with another case, was taken on remand in this case. During cross examination, Mahalik said he had seized the bike from the spot before the scientific team reached the next morning.
Mahalik was contradicted by eyewitness Subrat Biswal who said he had rushed injured Rakesh to the hospital on the bike on which they were sitting before the crime. The bike was seized from the hospital, he added.
Curiously, Rakesh’s other friend Suresh Sethi was not examined about the bike’s seizure.
Again, Mahalik said he was conducting inquest of Rakesh’s body between 9 am and 11:30 am August 23, 2012 at the hospital. On the contrary, the scientific team that collected three cartridges from the square said it visited the crime spot between 9 am and 1 pm.
Defence argued it the cartridges collected from the crime scene was not done in presence of Mahalik because he could not have been present at two places simultaneously. The argument falsified forensic evidences of prosecution in the court.
Mahalik himself contradicted the prosecution evidence. He said at the time of seizing the bike the previous night he had not seen anything else on the spot.
Prosecution could not corroborate conspiracy charges with evidence such as specific date, time and place of conspiracy by the accused.
The defence proved that confessions of Bilu, Nilu and Chitra were taken under coercion and the pistols were not seized from them. The witnesses to confessions of the accused turned hostile. They said they did not hear accused confessing about hiding of pistols. They said the police took signatures on blank papers.
The prosecution did not examine Kalindi Nayak, a witness to bike’s seizure and Sandip Kumar Mohapatra, witness to cartridge seizure.
Public prosecutor BB Mohanty told Orissa POST, “We can’t blame one person for a failure.” Admitting that re-appeal would do little in the case, Mohanty believed they lost the case as witnesses turned hostile. Asked whether he had any material evidence, Mohanty said witnesses mattered more in the court.
Mohanty is part of the three-member District Advisory Committee led by DCP, which has been reviewing all acquittals in Khurda court.
The additional session judge court acquitted all four accused of charges under sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act due to lack of evidence April 26.
