HC commutes death penalty to nine for 2016 triple murder over witchcraft suspicion | Bhubaneswar News
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Wednesday commuted the death penalty awarded to nine convicts in a 2016 case in which three members of a family were killed on the suspicion of practising sorcery in Rayagada to life imprisonment, observing that it “would be a more appropriate sentence”.
While considering the criminal appeal of the convicts along with the death sentence reference case filed by the govt for confirmation of the death penalty, a division bench of Justices Sangam Kumar Sahoo and R K Pattanaik said the state had not placed on record any evidence to show there was no possibility of reformation or rehabilitation of the appellants, “foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making the imposition of the death sentence imperative”.
Reports furnished by the jail superintendent, where the appellants — Dengun Sabar, Dasunta Sabar, Aajanta Sabar, Padhantu Sabar, Dalasa Sabar, Malku Sabar, Bubuna Sabar, Lakiya Sabar and Iru Sabar — were lodged for more than eight years, showed that their conduct during incarceration was satisfactory. They were very disciplined, well-behaved, maintained discipline in jail administration, and showed good conduct and behaviour towards co-inmates and jail staff. No adverse report was found during the entire period of confinement, the reports found.
“In view of the foregoing discussions and giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the humble view that the death penalty would be disproportionate and unwarranted. Life imprisonment would be a more appropriate sentence,” the bench ruled in its 144-page judgment.
Considering the young age of the three surviving children of the murdered couple and their future liabilities, the bench directed the state govt to pay Rs 30 lakh compensation — Rs 10 lakh for each death under the Odisha Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2018 — within four weeks.
While acquitting the convicts of charges under Section 4 of the Odisha Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2013, the bench observed, “Even though we are in the 21st century, the old superstitions of witch-hunting are still alive in some parts of rural areas of our country, mainly due to a lack of education. This leads to innocent individuals, often women, falling prey to the practice, being publicly targeted, facing persecution, torture, and even gruesome murders on unfounded accusations of practising witchcraft.”
While justifying commuting the death sentence, the bench also noted that the nine convicts came from very poor tribal families and low-income groups. They were daily wage earners with families. “The social background of their respective families is not conducive, and their economic condition is also not good. Their families belong to the BPL category and are struggling for their livelihood. They are illiterate persons but maintain peaceful lives with their families and have cordial relationships with their neighbours and other villagers. The convicts have no criminal antecedents, and their family members also have no criminal background. This is the first offence committed by the appellant, no doubt, a heinous one,” the bench observed.
While considering the criminal appeal of the convicts along with the death sentence reference case filed by the govt for confirmation of the death penalty, a division bench of Justices Sangam Kumar Sahoo and R K Pattanaik said the state had not placed on record any evidence to show there was no possibility of reformation or rehabilitation of the appellants, “foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making the imposition of the death sentence imperative”.
Reports furnished by the jail superintendent, where the appellants — Dengun Sabar, Dasunta Sabar, Aajanta Sabar, Padhantu Sabar, Dalasa Sabar, Malku Sabar, Bubuna Sabar, Lakiya Sabar and Iru Sabar — were lodged for more than eight years, showed that their conduct during incarceration was satisfactory. They were very disciplined, well-behaved, maintained discipline in jail administration, and showed good conduct and behaviour towards co-inmates and jail staff. No adverse report was found during the entire period of confinement, the reports found.
“In view of the foregoing discussions and giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the humble view that the death penalty would be disproportionate and unwarranted. Life imprisonment would be a more appropriate sentence,” the bench ruled in its 144-page judgment.
Considering the young age of the three surviving children of the murdered couple and their future liabilities, the bench directed the state govt to pay Rs 30 lakh compensation — Rs 10 lakh for each death under the Odisha Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2018 — within four weeks.
While acquitting the convicts of charges under Section 4 of the Odisha Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2013, the bench observed, “Even though we are in the 21st century, the old superstitions of witch-hunting are still alive in some parts of rural areas of our country, mainly due to a lack of education. This leads to innocent individuals, often women, falling prey to the practice, being publicly targeted, facing persecution, torture, and even gruesome murders on unfounded accusations of practising witchcraft.”
While justifying commuting the death sentence, the bench also noted that the nine convicts came from very poor tribal families and low-income groups. They were daily wage earners with families. “The social background of their respective families is not conducive, and their economic condition is also not good. Their families belong to the BPL category and are struggling for their livelihood. They are illiterate persons but maintain peaceful lives with their families and have cordial relationships with their neighbours and other villagers. The convicts have no criminal antecedents, and their family members also have no criminal background. This is the first offence committed by the appellant, no doubt, a heinous one,” the bench observed.
