Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction & Life Term Of Man For Committing Murder Of Mother & 18-Day-Old Brother

Rejecting the plea of insanity advanced by the appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –

“Key pieces of evidence, including the consistent testimonies of witnesses, the recovery of the weapon at the Appellant's instance, and the medical evidence aligning with the injuries sustained by the victims, collectively point to the Appellant's culpability. Moreover, the plea of insanity was carefully examined and found insufficient to undermine the Appellant's criminal liability.”

Prosecution Case

In the morning hours of 19.07.2007, the appellant demanded rice from his mother, which she refused to serve. Resultantly, a quarrel ensued between the two. After some time, while his mother was sleeping along with his 18-days-old brother, the appellant attacked them on their necks with a ghaghada, which resulted in their instant death.

An FIR was registered by an independent villager and the appellant was apprehended on the same night. During the course of investigation, he led the police to the place where he had concealed the weapon of offence. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the appellant for the charge of murder.

The trial Court, after examining all the relevant evidence on record including the eye-witness account of the minor sister of the appellant, found the appellant guilty for commission of murder of the mother-son duo and sentenced him undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant approached the High Court in this jail criminal appeal.

Court's Findings

After hearing the contentions raised by both the sides, the Court delineated the primary issues for consideration, viz., reliability of the testimony of the minor sister of the appellant, recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant and the acceptability of plea of insanity raised by the appellant.

So far as evidentiary value of the testimony of the child witness, i.e. minor sister of the appellant was concerned, the Court observed that though the girl was merely aged about five years old at the time of occurrence, still she passed the 'voir dire test' conducted by the trial Court.

The Court also underlined that the minor eye-witness gave a detailed account of events which led up to the murder of her mother and infant brother. The witness not only explained about the incident but also deposed how she managed to escape from the place of occurrence and alerted the villagers about the occurrence.

Three other witnesses, who came to the spot immediately after the occurrence, also supported the version of the child witness and stated to have seen the minor girl running and crying and also the appellant fleeing the crime-scene.

“Furthermore, the comprehensive examination of the witness's statement does not indicate any coaching of the child witness. Therefore, considering the witness's consistency and the corroboration provided by other witnesses, the testimony is deemed reliable and corroborated,” it added.

The Court then examined the tenability of the plea of insanity raised by the appellant. It held that though he was called as 'Baya' (meaning 'insane' in Odia) in the village, but the village Sarpanch categorically stated that the appellant is not an insane person suffering from any mental disorder.

The appellant's actions before and after the crime, including demanding food, attacking the victims, fleeing the scene, and leading the police to the weapon's recovery, the Court held, indicate that he was aware of his actions.

“The witnesses' statements indicate that the Appellant exhibited irrational behavior. However, that does not conclude that he had homicidal tendencies. The evidence presented only shows behavior deviating from normalcy. This evidence is insufficient to prove that the Appellant's sense of reasoning was impaired to the extent necessary to establish legal insanity,” it held further.

Above all, relying upon Pakala Narayan Swami v. King Emperor, the Court was of the opinion that recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant is a very vital piece of evidence to tighten culpability against the appellant. This evidence was further amplified by the opinion of the post-mortem doctor who certified that the recovered weapon is capable to give the fatal wounds found from the bodies of the deceased.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant was sustained and the appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Case Title: Rupadhar Jani v. State of Odisha

Case No: JCRLA No. 97 of 2010

Date of Judgment: July 11, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Rajesh Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 62