Recently, the division bench of the Orissa High Court commuted the death sentence of a man who had been convicted by the trial court for murdering three members of a family, including two women, over a land dispute to seek revenge.
Brief Facts:
The case concerned the appellants who were accused of committing multiple murders. One appellant was charged with fatally attacking three victims with an axe, while the other was accused of aiding in the crime by restraining one of the victims, making the attack possible. The trial court found both appellants guilty, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the trial court's judgment.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the prosecution lacked clear and consistent evidence, especially regarding the appellant's involvement in the crime. It was further argued that the trial testimony attributed a different role to the appellant than what was described in the FIR, weakening the prosecution’s case. The handling of the weapon was also questioned, particularly the lack of clear evidence on its custody after seizure, which undermines the findings of human blood on it.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the prosecution's case was supported by consistent and credible eyewitness testimony, directly implicating the appellant in the crime. It was contended that minor discrepancies between the FIR and trial evidence were natural and did not undermine the reliability of the witnesses, particularly given the traumatic circumstances.
It was emphasized that the FIR's role is to initiate the investigation, with details being clarified during the trial. The recovery of the weapon with human blood was highlighted as strong corroboration of the eyewitness accounts, linking the appellant to the crime.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that while appellant Hemananda Dehury was listed as an assailant in the inquest report, this alone could not discredit the witness's testimony, as the inquest report's columns were not filled by the witness. The defence counsel highlighted discrepancies in the witness's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. However, the High Court found that the witness had indeed mentioned the assault in the Section 161 statement, which the trial court failed to note. The Bench emphasized that when previous statements under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC are confronted in court, it is the duty of the court to review these statements to minimize errors. Consequently, the Court deemed the witness's testimony reliable and upheld the trial court's reliance on it.
Regarding the murders of Pirobati Behera and Sabitri Sahu, the Court examined the testimonies of three eyewitnesses, including two minor children, and found their evidence credible despite some contradictions noted by the Amicus Curiae. The Court highlighted the long-standing civil dispute between the deceased and appellant Nabin Dehury, noting the premeditated nature of the crime, the choice of a deadly weapon, and the appellant's declaration after the murders. The weapon was recovered based on the appellant's information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench also found that Hemananda Dehury's actions contributed to the crime, sharing a common intention with Nabin Dehury.
With respect to Nabin Dehury, the Court noted that the trial court failed to consider mitigating circumstances before sentencing him to death. A report revealed that Nabin had good relations with co-villagers, satisfactory post-conviction conduct, but suffered from mental trauma due to a long-standing property dispute.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon'ble Court, after noting all the facts and circumstances, ruled that both appellants were guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC, upholding life imprisonment without remission or commutation, and directed compensation to the victims' families under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018.
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Nabin Dehury & tagged matters
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Case No.: DSREF No. 01 of 2023
Advocates for the Applicant: Advs.Mr. Debasis Sarangi and Mr. Pranaya Kumar Dash
Advocates for the Respondent: Advs. Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Mrs. Sushama Rani Sahoo and Ms. Gayatri Patra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
