'Violated Sacred Trust & Duty': Odisha Court Sentences Man To Death For Stabbing Wife 33 Times, Slitting 6-Yr-Old Daughter's Throat
A Sessions Court in Odisha's Khurda district has sentenced a man to the extreme penalty of death for committing murder of his wife by stabbing 33 times and causing grievous hurt to his six-year-old daughter by slitting her throat.While terming the crime to be a betrayal of trust and love of wife and minor daughter, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar Ms. Bandana Kar...
A Sessions Court in Odisha's Khurda district has sentenced a man to the extreme penalty of death for committing murder of his wife by stabbing 33 times and causing grievous hurt to his six-year-old daughter by slitting her throat.
While terming the crime to be a betrayal of trust and love of wife and minor daughter, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar Ms. Bandana Kar observed –
“33(XXXIII)”. What may seem as a mere number is the number of times the deceased was stabbed, the number of times she would have to witness death again and again, for the atrocity she had to go through was committed by none other than the one who was supposed to shield her from the brutish world. Each stab would have brought her moments of intense pain, fear, and betrayal, inflicted by someone she once trusted and loved.”
Prosecution Case
The accused used to stay in the first floor of his house along with his wife and two daughters, the elder being six-year-old and the younger being merely 3-4 days-old. His younger brother used to stay in the ground floor along with his family and mother and the elder brother stayed in the second floor with his family.
At about 11 AM on 09.06.2022, the mother of the accused asked her younger daughter-in-law to call the accused to take cooked food upstairs as the deceased had not fully recovered from her post-pregnancy weakness. However, when no one responded to the phone call, they proceeded to the upstairs.
While climbing the staircase, the mother saw the accused coming down. He confessed before her and his sister-in-law that he has committed the murder of the deceased and also slit the throat of his minor daughter. After making the confession, he left the house.
Subsequently, the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR and alleged that the couple used to have frequent quarrels over monetary issues. He also imputed the birth of second girl child hardly a couple of days prior the incident and monetary paucity to be the immediate motive behind the crime.
Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 302/307/324/326 of the IPC.
Trial Court's Findings
After examining the ocular as well as scientific documents, the Court formulated eight circumstances to ascertain the liability of the accused. At the outset, the Addl. Sessions Judge recorded that the six-year-old minor daughter of the accused is the only eye-witness to the incident.
Her deposition was recorded after finding her competent to depose as per the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act. She categorically stated about the incident and attributed liability to her father/the accused for commission of the murder of the deceased as well as for attempting to commit her murder by slitting her throat, which was so grave that the larynx got exposed to the outside.
The Court also observed that the cross-examination of the minor eye-witness did not impeach her testimony. Apart from that, her evidence was corroborated by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before his mother and sister-in-law, whose evidence was consistent and reliable.
The conduct of the accused in fleeing the spot of occurrence immediately after the incident was further held to be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the chance fingerprint taken from the weapon of offence matched with that of the fingerprint of the accused. Above all, blood of the deceased was also found from the wearing apparels of the accused.
It was also held that as the second girl child had taken birth just before a few days, the accused was dissatisfied with the same and was also disturbed for the paucity of money. This was attributed as the motive behind commission of the murder.
Accordingly, the trial Court held the accused to be guilty for committing the murder of his deceased-wife by stabbing her 33 times, which became evident from post-mortem examination. He was also held liable for causing grievous hurt to his daughter by slitting her throat, which had the potential to cause her death.
Observations On Sentence
After holding the accused guilty for commission of murder of the deceased and attempt to murder of his six-year-old minor daughter, the trial Court went on to hear the parties on the question of sentence.
The Court took into account the principles governing the imposition of death penalty in 'rarest of rare' cases as enumerated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. It also examined the aggravating and mitigating circumstances laid down in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Apart from that, the Court requisitioned report from Probation Officer regarding the socio-economic as well as familial and professional background of the accused as per the direction of the Supreme Court in Manoj & Ors. v. State of M.P.
Despite of affording opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence regarding mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused, the Court was of the view that the aggravating circumstances clearly outweighed the mitigating factors.
While imposing the harshest of punishment, i.e. capital punishment, the Addl. Sessions Judge observed:
“The convict has not only assaulted her physically but has also violated her dignity and humanity. As she would have endured this savage attack, the deceased would have been overwhelmed by a flood of emotions: the shock of the unexpected violence, the terror of realizing her life was in imminent danger, the fear of dangers her children could face in the future and the deep sorrow of understanding that the person committing this atrocity was her own husband.”
The Court visualized the trauma of two minor daughters, especially the elder one who had to witness the most ghastly incident she could have ever seen. The trial Judge emphatically described the ordeal of the children in the following words:
“The child whom The Indian System of Law doesn't not even permit to watch such monstrosity in films would have had to live it on her own eyes. The little girl of 6 who would have would proudly sung “Vande Mataram “had her larynx brutally cut open by her own father, the girl who would perhaps relish little pleasures of watching “Chhota Bheem” and “Doraemon” had to rather witness the ghastly killing of her mother by her father.”
Expressing serious concern over the fate of the minor daughters of the deceased and the accused, the Court said:
“The tragedy and the fate of both the girl children cannot be comprehended. Definitely, a nation which aims to send her girl child to create milestones with podium finishes at Olympics, swim at the vast sea of the unknowns in the space can barely achieve this dream when its children are traumatised with the brutality of such fiendish nature.”
Denying any relief to the accused whatsoever, the trial Judge remarked:
“This was not a crime of passion or a momentary lapse in judgment; it was a calculated and deliberate act meant to cause maximum harm and suffering. The intent to inflict such grievous harm on his own family highlights an extreme moral corruption and a threat to the fabric of society, a society which has from time immemorial championed the rights and equality of women. By doing so, the convict has violated the most sacred trust and duty a husband and a father has the responsibility to protect and nurture his family.”
Case Title: State of Orissa v. Sanjeet Dash @ Banku
Case No: C.T. Case No. 322 of 2022