Orissa HC Upholds Conviction of Ex-MLA in Murder of His Pregnant Wife

Orissa High Court upholds conviction and life imprisonment of former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Ramamurty Gamango For murdering his pregnant wife at his official residence in 1995.

While confirming the trial Court order dated 2023, Division Bench Judge Sangam Kumar Sahoo And Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –

“The precise nature of the evidence, including the decedent’s ante-mortem injuries, Appellant’s minor injuries inconsistent with his claim of rescue, and Appellant’s immediate call to the police rather than seeking medical attention, collectively refute any hypothesis of innocence. “Therefore, based on probable and well-founded evidence, the prosecution has conclusively proven the Appellant’s guilt.”

Real Background

Throughout 1995, the appellant was residing with his second wife (‘the deceased’) and his son at his official residence in the MLA colony in the capital Bhubaneswar. On 29.08.1995, at around 9 am, the appellant allegedly heard the Deceased screaming and rushed to the bathroom and saw that it was locked from inside and smoke was coming out.

After a while, it was understood that the bathroom door was broken open and the victim was set on fire. As the deceased died instantly, the matter was reported to the police, which was registered as a case of unnatural death (UD).

After completion of investigation, the appellant was found guilty of murder of the deceased and accordingly a charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The court found the defendant guilty of the above-mentioned charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder.

The plaintiff, who was aggrieved by the court’s decision, objected to the same decision before the Supreme Court.

Arguments for Parties

It was vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that there was absolutely no motive for the commission of the murder and there was no rivalry, enmity or ill-feeling between the couple which could enrage the appellant to take any drastic step.

It was also stated that the autopsy report claimed that death occurred due to “asphyxia” caused by smoke inhalation. But strikingly, the doctor did not express any opinion as to the nature of the death, i.e. suicide or murder. It was therefore argued that ‘subeooxia’ or very low oxygen concentration may occur in any fire-related accident and therefore the prosecution theory of homicidal death lacks credibility.

On the other hand, the State relied on the autopsy report to argue that the deceased was incompetent before he was killed. It was also claimed that his death was not self-immolation, but that the deceased was overpowered before burning.

Cry of Pain and Cry for Help

The court highlighted the evidence given by the only defense witness who claimed he saw smoke and then heard the deceased scream. “marigali, marigali” (vehicle ‘I’m dying’).

“This cry of despair carries significant weight in assessing the circumstances surrounding his death. If the deceased had truly intended to commit suicide as the defense claimed, it is unlikely that he would have screamed for help as the fire consumed him. “The cry ‘Marigali, marigali’ indicates a clear effort, consciously or unconsciously, to alert others to his condition and to escape the pain of being burned.”

The Bench was of the view that if the deceased wanted to commit suicide by burning himself, his cries would be cries of pain instead of cries for help.

“The fact that his words point to a cry for help shows that he is not completely resigned to death, but instead is trying to escape the situation. This distinction between a cry of pain and a cry for help is very important. A person attempting suicide does not usually call for rescue in this way. Instead, the cry of “marigali, marigali” reveals that the deceased was in distress and wanted to be rescued; “This casts doubt on the theory of deliberate, premeditated self-immolation.”

Appellant’s Culpability

Emphasis was also placed on the testimony of the defense witness, who stated that the deceased prevented him from entering the bathroom and that he entered there himself. The court viewed this behavior of the deceased with suspicion and observed the following:

“In suicide cases, individuals often seek to achieve solitude by minimizing the chance of intervention or rescue. “If the intention is truly to self-immolate, instructing a person to wait before using the toilet raises questions as it inherently increases the risk of discovery and rescue.”

Although appellant and the defense witness stated that they tried very hard to break open the bathroom door, forensic evidence did not find any serious dents in the door latch. Further, the Court was of the view that the appellant was in charge of the house and therefore should have known how the fire broke out and how the deceased was set on fire. His failure to provide any reasonable explanation in this regard was held against him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

“These details provide important clues about the condition of the scene, suggesting that when a fire or smoke incident occurs, no signs of disturbance or struggle other than broken glass are readily apparent. This evidence may be important in determining the cause of death and the sequence of events leading up to it.” he added.

Mother is Unlikely to Harm the Unborn Baby

Medical evidence shows a lacerated wound on the back of the deceased’s head. This particular injury was indicative of blunt force trauma occurring prior to death. The Court therefore concluded that the deceased had been shot or otherwise injured before being set on fire. This angle further strengthened the prosecution theory.

Above all, medical evidence showed that the deceased was approximately 14-16 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident. The court was skeptical about a mother’s decision to kill herself, knowing that the step she took would also kill the fetus she was carrying.

“The maternal instinct to protect an unborn child is a very powerful force, and it is unlikely that a woman carrying a fetus in her second trimester would deliberately attempt to harm herself or her unborn baby without a compelling reason. “The absence of any evidence indicating emotional distress, a suicidal mindset, or any circumstantial triggers that might lead a pregnant woman to take such a drastic step further reduces the likelihood of suicide.” he observed.

Appellant’s Injuries and Conduct

After examining the injuries sustained by the appellant and the defense witness, the Court was of the opinion that these injuries did not support the defense theory that they had tried hard to save the deceased from the fire. The Court also expressed surprise that the appellant chose to visit the police station first rather than seek immediate medical attention assuming the deceased was dead.

Taking into account all the above features, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it upheld the conviction of the first instance court.

Slow Progress of the Trial

The Division Bench reprimanded the trial court for the case progressing at a snail’s pace. Although the incident occurred in 1995, accusations were not made until 2013, almost 18 years later. The interrogation of all witnesses also took a long time and the final decision was made in 2023.

“While the Appellant appears to have contributed to certain delays, the passive role of the trial court in allowing such prolonged delays cannot be ignored. “This regrettable delay undermines the justice system’s ability to follow procedural instructions.” The court observed.

Case Title: Ramamurty Gamango / State of Odisha

Case Number: CRLA No. 715, 2023

Decision Date: 30 October 2024

Appellant Lawyer: Mr AP Bose, Advocate

State Advisor: Mr P B Tripathy, Addl. Standing Advisor

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 86