Criminal However Ruthless He Might Be, Is Human Being & Entitled To Life Of Dignity: Orissa HC Commutes Death Sentence Of 9 Persons In Triple Murder Case
The Orissa High Court was dealing with a Death Sentence Reference relating to a case involving triple murder due to witchcraft practice.

The Orissa High Court has commuted death sentence of nine persons to life imprisonment, who were allegedly involved in a murder of three persons of the same family.
The Court was dealing with a Death Sentence Reference relating to a case involving triple murder due to witchcraft practice.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice R.K. Pattnaik remarked, “We should not forget that the criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime. It is for the prosecution and the Court to determine whether such a person, notwithstanding his crime, can be reformed and rehabilitated. To obtain and analyse this information is certainly not an easy task, but must nevertheless be undertaken. Life imprisonment can be said to be completely futile, only when the sentencing aim of reformation can be said to be unachievable.”
The Bench was of the view that, even though we are in 21st century, the old superstitions of witch-hunting are still alive in some parts of rural areas of our country mainly on account of lack of education and it leads to innocent individuals, often women, fall prey to the practice, publicly targeted, face persecution, torture, and even gruesome murders on unfounded accusations of practising witchcraft.
“The case in hand is depicts sordid state of affairs where accusations of practising witchcraft led to commission of triple murder”, it added.
Advocates Himansu Bhusan Dash and Manas Kumar Chand appeared for the Appellants while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Arupananda Das appeared for the Respondent.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged by a woman i.e., the Informant whose father, mother, and elder sister were murdered in 2016. On September 9, 2016, in the evening hours, she had been to the house of a person with some corn and half an hour thereafter when she returned to her house, she found that none of her family members was present. She came to know from one person that some of her co-villagers had tied her parents and elder sister in a cowshed. She immediately rushed to that place where she was also allegedly tied by the accused persons in a stump. The 9 Appellants i.e., the accused persons along with one child in conflict with law were present there. It was further alleged that the Appellants assaulted her father, mother, and elder sister and were accusing against them that they had killed the co-villagers by practising sorcery due to which the other co-villagers were not getting relief from fever. The Appellants compelled them to tell the truth or else threatened to kill them and burn them to ashes.
One of the Appellants allegedly brought out a syringe filled with medicine in it, pierced its needle in the mouth, cheek, and eyes of the informant’s elder sister and asked her to tell the truth or else he would kill her. At that time, the other accused persons were mercilessly assaulting her parents by means of lathis. Some of them were also dealing kick blows, fist blows, and slaps to her parents by making mockery and soon thereafter, the Appellants also assaulted her elder sister by means of lathi. After this, they took three of them in a moribund state one after another from the cowshed, allegedly killed them, and buried them. The informant was threatened by them that if she would reveal anything to the police, she would also be killed. Resultantly after some days, the FIR was lodged. During examination, the Appellants confessed their guilt. The Trial Court awarded death sentence to all the Appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and hence, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “… we are of the humble view that a conviction for an offence does not necessarily depend upon the corpus delicti being found. In the absence of the corpus delicti, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that the person has died and that the accused are the persons who had committed the murder.”
The Court further emphasised that the duty of every Court is to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
“Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence and sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread”, it noted.
The Court said that the proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. It added that, anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is unwarranted and unwise and that a disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
“In our humble view, the sentences awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellants for commission of offences under sections 342/34, 364/34, 365/34,201/34, and 506/34 of the I.P.C. are quite justified”, it observed.
Furthermore, the Court elucidated that a ‘mitigating circumstance’ is a factor that lessens the severity of an act or culpability of the accused for his action and if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstance, the Judge is likely to be less aggressive in the ruling/sentencing.
“Law is well settled that in order to make out a case for imposition of death sentence, the prosecution undoubtedly has to discharge a very onerous burden by demonstrating the existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances. The case must fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ warranting imposition of death sentence”, it noted.
The Court remarked that the public opinion or the society's expectation may be to confirm the death sentence awarded to the Appellants since it is a case of triple murder and two of the deceased were ladies, but it must be remembered that such opinion or expectation is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime, nor the criminal, and therefore, the Court must exercise judicial restraint and play a balancing role.
“The appellants come from very poor tribal families and low income groups and they were daily wage earners and having families. The social background of their respective family is not conducive and economic condition is also not good. Their families belong to BPL category and are struggling for their livelihood. They are illiterate persons, but maintaining peaceful lives with their families and they are having cordial relationship with their neighbours and other villagers. The appellants are having no criminal antecedents and their family members are also having no criminal background. This is the first offence committed by the appellant, no doubt, a heinous one”, it added.
The Court took note of the fact that the Appellants were much disciplined and well behaved and were maintaining every discipline in jail administration and showing good conduct and behaviour towards co-inmates and jail staff and no adverse report was found in the entire period of confinement. It further noted that they were mentally stable and having no mental depression as well as no history of post-conviction mental illness in jail.
The Court, therefore, concluded that death penalty would be disproportionate, unwarranted and life imprisonment would be a more appropriate sentence.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence of the accused persons to life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Dengun Sabar & Ors. v. State of Odisha