'Voluntary Intoxication Not A Defence': Orissa High Court Upholds Man's Conviction For Strangulating & Beheading Mother
The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction and life term of a man who was held guilty for strangulating and severing the head of his own mother under the influence of ganja.Declining to interfere with the trial Court judgment, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held:“The instant case has exposed this Court to a very unfortunate set of facts...
The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction and life term of a man who was held guilty for strangulating and severing the head of his own mother under the influence of ganja.
Declining to interfere with the trial Court judgment, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held:
“The instant case has exposed this Court to a very unfortunate set of facts where a son did not think twice before killing his creator, i.e. the mother. As per the above position of law, the knowledge of the appellant for commission of the crime can be well inferred, notwithstanding the fact that he was intoxicated.”
Prosecution Case
On the night of 11/12.05.2008, the appellant strangulated his mother (the deceased) for which she struggled to save her life. However, due to continued throttling, she lost her senses and died.
After the death of the deceased, the appellant took her body to a place situated near his house. Upon reaching there, the appellant separated the head of the deceased from her body by means of a sickle. Thereafter, while returning to his home, the appellant threw away the sickle on the way but carried the severed head of the deceased in a bag and kept it in his house.
In the early morning of the next day, some villagers discovered the headless dead body of the deceased and informed the village committee members. The committee president lodged the FIR and subsequently, investigation was carried out.
The police filed charge-sheet against the appellant. After examining the testimony of the grandson of the deceased, the trial Court was of the considered view that the appellant committed murder of the deceased and beheaded her by means of a sickle.
Court's Observations
The Court, at the outset, examined evidence of the grandson of the deceased, who happened to be the only eye-witness to the occurrence. The Bench noted that the trial Court took all precautions and made the child witness to go through the 'voir dire' test so as to ensure his competency to depose.
It was observed that the child witness described the incident that transpired in the night of occurrence in lucid details. He further stated that the appellant kept him bolted inside the house after the incident and when the door was opened in the next morning, he informed the villagers about the incident.
The Court also underlined that the trial Court noted the demeanor of the child witness while he was deposing about the incident in front of the appellant. It had noted that the child appeared to be confident throughout the examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
The Division Bench also cited Section 280 of the CrPC which empowers trial Judge recording the evidence of witnesses, to also record such remarks (if any) as he thinks material, respecting the demeanor of such witness whilst under examination.
It observed that demeanor of the witness, as recorded by the trial Court, needs to be weighed while ascertaining reliability of the testimony of the witness. Considering the confident manner in which the child stated about the incident coupled with the evidence of the post-mortem doctor and recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court was of the view that the appellant has in fact committed the murder of the deceased.
The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he committed the crime while he was intoxicated and was under the influence of ganja. However, the Court was not convinced by such a plea and made it clear that 'voluntary intoxication' is not a defence under the IPC.
“The Penal Code does not provide for any provision which can potentially protect an accused from liability for commission of any crime, much less a heinous crime like murder, merely because he chose to intoxicate himself before executing his culpable intention,” it held.
Placing reliance on Paul v. State of Kerala (2020), the Court opined that the knowledge of the appellant to commit the crime can be well inferred even if he was under intoxication. Further, it held, the defence did not adduce any evidence to show that the intoxication was so intense that it rendered the appellant incapable to form the intention necessary for the commission of the crime.
Accordingly, the jail criminal appeal was dismissed upholding the judgment of the trial Court.
Case Title: Rankanidhi Behera v. State of Odisha
Case No: JCRLA No. 29 of 2010
Date of Judgment: July 24, 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, Amicus Curiae
Counsel for the State: Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 63