Witchcraft Double Murder: Orissa High Court Issues Notice To Life Convicts Proposing To Impose Higher Punishment

While upholding conviction of three persons for double murder on suspicion of witchcraft, the Orissa High Court has issued notice to them proposing to impose higher sentence than life imprisonment which was imposed by the Trial Court.

Expressing doubt over adequacy of the sentence for such ghastly crime by means of beheading, the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Sashikanta Mishra ordered,

“…in exercise of the revisional power under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we propose to issue notice to these accused persons to have their say on the adequacy of sentence and as to why they should not be visited with the sentence of higher degree.”

Factual Background

On 09.10.2014, around 9.00 PM, the three accused persons (appellants herein) with others came being armed with sword and axe and entered into the house of the deceased. They are said to have dragged victim Jemamani (the mother of the informant) from the house to the courtyard and dealt blows by means of a sword and axe on her neck.

When the father of the informant, Rajendra went to rescue his wife, the accused persons apparently dealt blows on him as well by the said weapons. Then they beheaded both Rajendra and Jemamani, carried their heads for some distance and threw those on road, it is said.

The elder daughter of the deceased persons lodged a report with the police stating that the accused persons, having entertained the belief in their mind that her mother was practising witchcraft, were bearing grudge against the members of the family.

Subsequently, the investigation was carried out and upon its completion, the chargesheet was submitted against the appellants along with nine others to face the trial for commission of offence under section 302/450 read with section 34 of the IPC.

The Trial Court found these three appellants to be guilty under the aforementioned charges and accordingly imposed respective sentences, including sentence of life imprisonment for the commission of murder. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the High Court filing these appeals.

Contentions of Parties

It was submitted for the appellants that the Trial Court should not have relied upon the evidence of the witnesses to hold that the prosecution has established the charges beyond all reasonable doubts against them.

It was argued that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses by taking into account the surrounding circumstances emerging in evidence as also some suspicious and doubtful features surfacing in evidence have been ignored.

However, it was submitted for the State that there is no contradiction and the evidence of all the witnesses are consistent with one another in so far as the role played by these accused person are concerned and it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants had dealt the fatal blows upon the deceased persons and severed their heads.

Court’s Observations

The Court thoroughly went through the deposition made by the informant and discarded the argument of the appellants that her version is untrustworthy as she did not cause alarm at that time seeking help. The Court said,

“When several persons, being armed, are going on with the spree of killing her unarmed parents before her eyes and other family members, it is not at all expected from this P.W.1 or other family members to raise alarm. Rather the normal reaction would be to be a silent spectator to this ghastly incident being completely aghast and shocked by said acts, which is totally unexpected and unthinkable on her part as if a horror film was being exhibited before her.”

The Bench also denied the suggestion of the appellants that the evidence of PW-2 (sister of Rajendra) is also doubtful and observed,

“When this witness had not stated as to which accused was holding what weapon, that has rather been elicited during cross-examination and that fortifies the role of these accused persons. It appears that this witness at the earlier stage being not so descriptive has after some time on being so asked could not resist the temptation to tell all those happenings being truthful.”

The Court also accepted the testimony of PW-3 (the younger daughter of the deceased). Rejecting the contentions of the appellants, it was of the view that she being a child of only eleven years, is ordinarily not expected to give a detailing on the tit-bit role played by the accused persons, especially when she had to see her helpless parents being beheaded in a ghastly manner.

After analysing the above evidence, the Court found substance in the prosecution case against the appellants and as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Keonjhar was confirmed. However, the Court was sceptical of the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and said,

“…in addressing the adequacy of sentence, when we again turn our attention to the obtained evidence as regards the way and manner in which the occurrence took place as well as all the circumstances as have emerged and the part played by these accused persons therein; we are not able to bring ourselves to a position to straight away take a view that the imposed sentence may be adequate.”

Thus, notice was given to the counsel appearing for the accused persons to have his submission as to why the sentence as has been imposed by the Trial Court on the appellants shall not be enhanced.

The Bench also directed the Registry to immediately send notice to the Superintendent, District Jail, Keonjhar to serve upon the accused persons as to why the sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon them shall not be enhanced as being inadequate and non-commensurate to the crime committed by them.

The matter is now listed on April 17, 2023 for conducting hearing on the question of adequacy of sentence imposed.

Case Title: Basanta Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Case No.: JCRLA No. 37 of 2020

Date of Judgment: March 27, 2023

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Bhabani Sankar Das, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 41