Pranav B Prem

The Orissa High Court has commuted the death sentences awarded to nine individuals convicted of murdering three family members in a case rooted in witchcraft allegations. The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik highlighted the possibility of reforming the accused, emphasizing that even ruthless criminals deserve a life of dignity.

Background of the Case

The case arose from the brutal killing of Asina Sabar, Amabaya Sabar, and Ashamani Sabar on September 9, 2016, in the village of Kitum, Rayagada district. The victims were accused of practicing witchcraft, which allegedly caused the deaths and illnesses of co-villagers. The informant, Melita Sabar, filed an FIR on September 16, 2016, detailing the harrowing events leading to the murders and the subsequent threats she faced from the accused.

Trial Court Verdict

In 2021, the Sessions Judge, Rayagada, sentenced the nine accused to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed additional penalties under Sections 342, 364, 365, 201, and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act, 2013. The trial court labeled the case as the "rarest of rare," citing the brutality of the murders and their impact on societal conscience.

High Court Observations and Decision

While upholding the conviction, the High Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life without remission, emphasizing reformative justice principles. The Court noted:

• "We should not forget that the criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime."

• The Court relied on reports from the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Koraput, which highlighted the good conduct and psychological state of the accused, indicating their potential for rehabilitation. “…it cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellants being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative or in other words, life imprisonment would be completely inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice.” the court added

Key Findings from the Judgment

1. Credibility of Witnesses: The Court dismissed arguments that the informant, being related to the victims, was an interested witness. It reiterated that a "related" witness is not inherently "interested" and that the testimony of a single reliable witness can form the basis for conviction.

2. Delay in FIR: The Court accepted the informant's explanation for the delay, acknowledging the threats and hostile environment she faced.

3. Non-Recovery of Dead Bodies: Relying on precedent, the Court stated that the absence of corpus delicti does not invalidate a conviction if other evidence sufficiently proves the crime.

4. Witchcraft Allegations: While the trial court convicted the accused under Section 4 of the Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act, the High Court acquitted them of this charge, citing insufficient evidence to establish the specific acts required under the law.

“On the face of the evidence of P.W.1, there is no such material to attract the ingredients of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the O.P.W.H. Act, 2013 as neither the two lady deceased nor the informant (P.W.1) were forced by the appellants, branding them as witches, to drink or eat any inedible substance or any other obnoxious substance or were paraded with painted face or body or any such similar acts were committed, which were derogatory to human dignity or they were displaced from their house,” the Court held.

 

Sentencing Analysis

The Bench criticized the trial court for not adequately considering mitigating factors during sentencing. It noted that the trial court's process lacked an exploration of the socio-economic background, mental condition, and potential for rehabilitation of the accused. In commuting the death sentence, the High Court balanced aggravating factors, such as the heinous nature of the crime, against mitigating circumstances, including the accused’s potential for reform. 

“It is thus clear that the learned trial Court after convicting the appellants has not given adequate opportunity to them to produce the mitigating circumstances in their favour nor it tried to collect the same nor discussed what the mitigating circumstances are available in favour of the appellants, but merely stated that the aggravating circumstances were outweighing the mitigating circumstances,” it added.

Compensation Awarded

The Court ordered a compensation of ₹10 lakh per deceased, amounting to ₹30 lakh in total, to be distributed equally among the informant and her siblings under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme.

Cause Title:  State of Odisha v. Dengun Sabar & Ors.

Case No:  DSREF No. 1 of 2021 along with CRLA No. 750 of 2021

Date: January-15-2025

Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik 

[Read/Download order]