Back
1984 Supreme(Ori) 104
High Court Of Orissa
B. K. BEHERA, P. C. MISRA
STATE - Appellant
Versus
ARU PRADHAN - Respondent
DEATH REF. 98 Of 1984
Decided On : 07/02/1984
A.B.DASH, B.Mohapatra, B.RATH, INDRAJIT ROY, J.K.MISHRA, N.C.MISHRA
The death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, and only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 1983 WITH REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1983 - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [SECTION 302, PENAL CODE] - [SENTENCE OF DEATH] - [CONFIRMATION OF SENTENCE] - [RAJYA PRASAD BEHERA V. STATE OF ORISSA] - [FACT OF THE CASE] - [FINDING OF THE COURT] - [ISSUES] - [RATIO DECIDENDI] - [FINAL DECISION] - [MAIN LEGAL POINT]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Rajya Prasad Behera, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death by the Court of Session. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant had killed the deceased, Hadiani alias Urbasi Pradhan, in a land dispute. The appellant had an alibi defense, claiming that he was not in the village at the time of the murder. The prosecution relied on the evidence of four eyewitnesses to the murder, as well as the evidence of two witnesses who saw the appellant fleeing the scene with a bloodstained Katari (knife). The appellant also made an extrajudicial confession to two witnesses, admitting to the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and that the appellant's alibi defense was false. The Court also found that the extrajudicial confession was not reliable, as it did not meet the tests laid down by the Supreme Court. However, the Court found that the evidence of the two witnesses who saw the appellant fleeing the scene with a bloodstained Katari was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court also found that the murder was a cold-blooded, preplanned, and gruesome act, and that the appellant deserved the death penalty.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable. 2. Whether the appellant's alibi defense was false. 3. Whether the extrajudicial confession was reliable. 4. Whether the murder was a cold-blooded, preplanned, and gruesome act. 5. Whether the appellant deserved the death penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable because it was clear, consistent, and corroborated by the evidence of the doctor who conducted the autopsy. The Court also found that the appellant's alibi defense was false because it was not supported by any evidence. 2. The Court found that the extrajudicial confession was not reliable because it did not meet the tests laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the confession was made to two witnesses who were not close associates of the appellant, and that there was no reason why the appellant would have confessed to them. 3. The Court found that the murder was a cold-blooded, preplanned, and gruesome act because the appellant had killed the deceased in a land dispute, and because the appellant had shown no remorse for his crime. 4. The Court found that the appellant deserved the death penalty because the murder was a heinous crime and because the appellant had shown no remorse for his crime.
Final Decision: The High Court discharged the death reference and allowed the appeal in part with regard to the sentence imposed on the appellant. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant was maintained, but he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life instead of death.
BEHERA, J.
( 1 ) HANGING in the balance between life and death with an order of conviction recorded by the Court of Session against him under S. 302, Penal Code (for short, the Code) with a direction that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead, the accused-convict (described hereinafter as the 'appellant') has appealed against the judgment and order. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death. The death reference and the criminal appeal have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.
( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution and the plea of the appellant have been set out in details in the judgment of the trial court. There had been land dispute between the appellant and his mother Labanya, who also figured as a co-accused being charged of abetment of the commission of the offence of murder by the appellant, on the one hand and Hadiani alias Urbasi Pradhan (hereinafter described as the 'deceased'), born through step-mother of the appellant, on the other, over the properties left by Kaira Pradhan, his father. After the deceased successfully instituted a suit against the appellant and obtained a decree and had obtained an ex parte order of restraint against the appellant and the co-accused in a proceeding under S. 144, Cr PC and after having taken possession partially of the lands she was entitled to on 18-1-1983 and the rest of the lands was to be demarcated on the day following, the appellant, it was alleged, on the day following, i. e. on 19-1-1983, at about 10 a. m. , attacked the deceased while she was moving on the road at village Talagad where she had come, under the instigation of the co-accused to kill her, caught hold of the hairs of the deceased who had been carrying her child aged about one and a half years as a result of which she fell down and the appellant pressed her chest and cut her throat by the Katari he was holding which resulted in the death of the deceased. The appellant left the place with the Katari stained with blood which was witnessed by Banshidhar Maharana (P. W. 7), who had his black-smith shop nearby and Udayanath Sahu (P. W. 8), who had come to that place to have his Tangia sharpened, besides Chakra Sahu (not examined), who was also in the blacksmith shop and there, the appellant made an extrajudicial confession before them that he had cut the throat of the deceased and that he had been going to the police station. The occurrence had been witnessed by four co-villagers of the appellant, namely, Asha Pradhan (P. W. 2), Kumar Sahu (P. W. 4), Sudhakar Behera (P. W. 5) and Prasanna Sahu (P. W. 6 ). The child of the deceased was brought and kept by P. W. 2 after her murder. On receiving information from Nishanath Sahu (D. W. 1) that the appellant had killed the deceased, the Grama Rakshi (P. W. 1), a resident of Bandanposi, who was also the Grama Rakshi for this village, came to the village of the appellant, enquired from some villagers as to what had happened and then went and lodged the first information report (Ext. 1) at the Talcher Police Station on which basis investigation was taken up by the Officer-in-charge (P. W. 13) who, in course of investigation, arrested the appellant and the co-accused and seized a banian (M. O. I.) with stains of blood in it from the person of the appellant on 21-1-1983. A lathi (M. O. II) had been seized from the verandah of the appellant's house. On the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was placed and the appellant and the co-accused were prosecuted.
( 3 ) THE appellant stood charged under S. 302 of the Code for having committed the murder of the deceased and the co-accused stood charged under S. 302 read with S. 114 of the Code for abetment of the commission of the offence of murder. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined thirteen witnesses. The plea of the appellant and the co-accused was one of the denial and false implication. The appellant had set up a plea of al
