Sagar
PostNewsNetwork
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, a total of 14 kidnapping cases were registered with Mahila police in the city, according to an RTI reply Orissa POST got from Mahila police. In none of the cases, accused have been convicted
Bhubaneswar: After three years of long wait, floating uneasily between hope and despair, 24-year-old Mithun Nayak is finally exonerated of the charge of kidnapping his girlfriend and marrying her. He is a free man today, but life stands still for him. The girl he married is no more his. A mutual divorce being the price for his newly won freedom.
The assistant sessions court here found Nayak not guilty, May 30, after mediators facilitated a settlement of the issues involved in the case.
It was in February 2012 that Nayak, then a young engineering student of the Techno School of Enginering in Aiginia, quietly took away a girl he was in love with — Jayanti Patra, of Khandagiribari. The two got married in a temple. Both the families were upset over what has happened. However, Nayak’s father, Pramod, finally agreed to his son’s wish, and allowed the couple to go and stay at Nayak’s paternal home in Kendrapada.
After 15 days, Jayanti returned to her father Nursingh Chandra Patra’s home, under not fully explained circumstances. The father had lodged a kidnapping case against Nayak under section 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction to compel to marry) and 344 (confinement for more than 10 days) with the Mahila Police here. However, Patras weren’t pursuing the case and instead showed a willingness to reconcile to the marriage on condition Nayak would stay with them and become ‘Ghar Jamai’. Nayak disagreed. The girl’s family, then, asked Nayak to divorce Jayanti. He refused to do this as well.
Patra family, thereon, decided to pursue the case vigorously. Nayak was arrested the next month and put in jail for 16 days, after which bail was granted to him. The police filed a charge sheet in the case May 6, 2014. During the trial, he had to appear before the court on hearing dates, and he also reported to Mahila Police station every weekend.
Through all these ordeals, Nayak managed to finish his engineering degree and wrote the exam, while on bail last year. However, a job for a kidnap-accused was still difficult.
Meanwhile, Jayanti had filed a divorce petition before the family court and would continuously goad Nayak to agree for a mutual divorce. In return, she said she was ready to admit before the court that, contrary to what her parents complained, she had gone away with Nayak, her lover, on her own will.
On the judgment day,
Orissa Post asked Nayak as to why it took him three years to agree for a mutual divorce, for, had he done this earlier, he might have been acquitted, and a free man, long ago. His reply: “I never wanted a divorce. All I asked for is her support to build a family together. How could I have become Ghar Jamai?”
The case dragged on. In 2015, a middleman courted the defence lawyer and put forth a proposal of withdrawal of the kidnap case as a quid pro quo against Nayak’s consent to divorce. Such interventions by middlemen to have rival sides mutually settle cases, rather than dragging issues unendingly are not uncommon in courts.
An out-of-the-court settlement was reached between the complainant and the accused. Nayak agreed for a divorce and Jayanti kept her promise: she told the court that Nayak did not kidnap her, and she went with her on her own will. Jayanti’s father later told the court during cross examination that he settled his differences outside the court. The two other witnesses — Jayanti’s mother and sister — also struck a conciliatory note. They said they had no differences with the accused anymore.
While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed: “The prosecution has not come to the court with clean hands and has failed miserably in proving the charges against the accused.” Nayak was held not guilty of the charges leveled against him, and was acquitted.
When Orissa Post asked the prosecution, additional public prosecutor SS Panda, as to why the complainant shall not be held responsible for wasting the court’s time, he said, “I’m afraid but there is no legal provision to compensate it. It was a mutual agreement. If Nayak wants to take them to court for defamation, he can file an appeal.” Panda admitted that divorce case was used as a quid pro quo in the out-of-the-court settlement.
All the same, Defence lawyer DAK Mangraj has demanded a compensation for Nayak’s agony, but the court rejected the plea. “It’s very uncommon in our criminal justice system to get compensation for something like this,” he said.
