49-stab murder of wife and attempted throat-slitting of daughter: Orissa High Court commutes death sentence to life imprisonment with a 35-year minimum before remission consideration

Sanjeet Dash was prosecuted for allegedly stabbing his wife, Saraswati Dash, to death and slitting the throat of their six-year-old daughter, Shree @ Pari, at their residence on 9 June 2022.

The prosecution relied principally on the injured child’s testimony, the accused’s extra-judicial confession before his mother, his immediate departure from the premises, recovery of the blood-stained knife bearing his fingerprints, blood stains on his clothes, and evidence of frequent financial quarrels with the deceased.

The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment under Sections 307 and 326 IPC, and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently.

The death sentence was referred for confirmation under Section 366 Cr.P.C., and the accused filed an appeal.

1. Whether the deceased’s death was homicidal and whether the accused was the author of the crime.

2. Whether the accused’s act of repeatedly stabbing the deceased constituted murder under Section 300 IPC, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.

3. Whether the evidence established an attempt to murder the minor daughter under Section 307 IPC.

4. Whether the accused could simultaneously be convicted under Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC for the injuries caused to the daughter during the same transaction.

5. Whether the death sentence satisfied the “rarest of rare” standard after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The Court applied Sections 300 and 302 IPC: culpable homicide amounts to murder where the act is accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge, including an intention to inflict bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; the statutory exceptions must also be considered.

It applied Section 307 IPC, under which an overt act accompanied by the intention or knowledge necessary for murder constitutes attempt to murder, and held that actual infliction of a fatal injury is not essential, relying on Sagayam v. State of Karnataka.

Section 71 IPC was applied to prevent multiple punishment where one offence is made up of parts constituting other offences.

The Court relied on Mohd. Azad @ Samin v. State of West Bengal for the rule that a voluntary and credible extra-judicial confession may independently support conviction, Shri Fulkumar v. Delhi Administration for reliance on fingerprint-expert evidence without mandatory examination of the expert where examination is not sought, and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab for the requirements of Section 300, clause “Thirdly”.

For sentencing, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab required death penalty to be confined to the “rarest of rare” cases after full consideration of crime- and offender-related circumstances, while Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka recognised an expanded sentence of life imprisonment for a specified minimum period where ordinary life imprisonment would be inadequate.

Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. was treated as requiring a hearing on sentence before punishment was imposed.

The Court independently found the death homicidal on the basis of the 49 sharp-force injuries, the medical evidence, and the recovery of the blood-stained knife.

The child’s injured eyewitness testimony, the mother’s corroborated account of the accused’s confession, his departure from the house, the fingerprint evidence, and the presence of blood of the deceased’s group on his clothing formed a complete and reliable evidentiary chain identifying him as the assailant.

The Court rejected the plea of sudden quarrel or provocation: the number, distribution and cumulative effect of the injuries showed an intentional murderous assault, and none of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC was established.

The slitting of the daughter’s throat, coupled with the location and nature of the injury, established the intention to kill and therefore Section 307 IPC; however, because the injuries attracting Sections 324 and 326 IPC arose from the same transaction, Section 71 IPC precluded separate convictions and punishments for those offences.

Although the crime was exceptionally brutal, the Court gave weight to the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the accused’s good prison conduct, the possibility of reform, the absence of a definite motive, and the possibility—though not conclusively established—of a domestic quarrel and temporary loss of rational control.

It held that the trial court had relied excessively on emotional and moral considerations and had failed to conduct the required aggravating–mitigating circumstances analysis.

It declined to confirm the death sentence, holding that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold, but also found ordinary life imprisonment inadequate.

The sentence under Section 302 IPC was therefore modified to life imprisonment with a minimum custody period of 35 years before the accused could be considered for remission; the period already undergone was directed to be set off.

The State was further directed to pay Rs.10 lakhs each to the two minor daughters, to be placed in fixed deposits until they attained majority, with periodic monitoring by the District Legal Services Authority.