The Orissa High Court on Tuesday (August 25) commuted the sentence of death awarded to a man for committing murder of his wife by stabbing her 49 times with a knife, who had given birth to a girl child just three days prior to the incident, and also attempting to commit murder of his six-year-old daughter by slitting her throat. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 98]

Though the act of the appellant was found to be “extremely barbaric”, the Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sashikanta Mishra found fault with the Sessions Court for acting on “highly emotive considerations” instead of properly balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the words of the Court–

“While much of what has been narrated by the trial Court cannot be disputed or denied from a moral or ethical point of view, yet we are constrained to hold that an emotional or moral approach has no place in law. Law moves on hard facts alone. We are further constrained to opine that apparently in its zeal to paint the case as rarest of rare, the trial Court ignored the legal requirement of balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and embarked upon a moral journey laced with highly emotive considerations. We are unable to concur with such approach, which to us, is bereft of legal reasoning.”

On 09.06.2022, the appellant/condemned prisoner Sanjeet Dash allegedly assaulted his wife/the deceased Saraswati Dash, who had given birth to a girl child just three days prior to the incident, by way of a kitchen knife and committed her murder by giving as many as 49 stab wounds. He also slitted the throat of her minor daughter aged about six years old. Subsequently, he fled away from the spot.

Upon receiving such information telephonically, the brother of the deceased arrived at the spot and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. He, thereafter, proceeded to the police station and lodged an FIR under Sections 302 (murder)/307 (attempt to murder)/324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapon)/326 (causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon) of the IPC. The police nabbed the appellant in the same evening, who was roaming near a garden.

Finding enough substance against the appellant, the police filed the charge-sheet for commission of the aforementioned offences. The 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar found the appellant guilty of committing brutal murder of his wife, and not only attempting to commit murder of his minor daughter, but also inflicting grievous hurt with dangerous weapon. The Court found the case to be 'rarest of rare' and had accordingly awarded the extreme sentence of death for committing murder, apart from sentencing him under other charges.

The case was submitted to the High Court by the trial Court as per the provisions of Section 366 of the CrPC, and the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of conviction and sentence was tagged with the aforesaid reference.

At the outset, the Court perused the post-mortem report which clearly indicated as many as 49 stab injuries on different part of the dead body of the deceased. The autopsy surgeon opined the same to be an apparent case of homicidal death and the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon like knife.

The next aspect which the Court delved to determine was the authorship of crime. It analysed the prosecution evidence for that purpose. The minor daughter of the appellant and the deceased was projected as a star witness on behalf of the prosecution. She, in her deposition, unequivocally stated that her father (the appellant) killed her deceased-mother with a knife and also slit her throat.

Before fleeing from the spot, the appellant met his mother at the staircase of the house. The mother testified that the appellant had confessed to have killed the deceased and cut the throat of his daughter. Even the sister-in-law of the appellant also corroborated the evidence adduced by the mother of the appellant. She stated that the appellant made the extra-judicial confession to his mother while she was present.

Senior Advocate Soura Chandra Mohapatra, appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae, argued that the appellant did not flee from the spot as he was arrested within a close vicinity. He thus contended that such conduct on the part of the appellant is not relevant to determine his culpability. However, the Court nixed such argument by holding that had the crime been committed by anyone else, his reaction would have been completely different.

Another important aspect was the recovery of a blood-stained knife from the wash basin inside the house containing fingerprints of the condemned prisoner. Blood stains of the deceased were also recovered from the wearing apparels of the appellant. Further, the appellant kept silence when questioned under Section 313, CrPC about the incident. The Court therefore held that the complete absence of explanation on the part of the appellant about the incident adds an additional link to the prosecution case.

Though the prosecution suggested financial issues as well as birth of second girl child as the motive behind the murder, the same could not be conclusively proved. The Court, nevertheless, made it clear that failure to prove motive is not fatal for the prosecution in a case of this nature where ample direct evidences are available against the appellant.

So far as the question of conviction was concerned, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the incident happened due to the sudden provocation fuelled by a quarrel between the couple. It was submitted that the appellant did not have any intention to commit murder of the decease, rather he merely intended to cause hurt to her. But being blinded by sudden rage, he inflicted the injuries and most of the injuries were not on vital parts of body. The Court did not accept such argument and accordingly held–

“In a case of such nature where the body contained as many as 49 stab injuries and the doctor certifies that haemorrhage and shock was a result of all the injuries, there is no necessity of segregating the injuries individually. Of course, had the injuries being inflicted on non-vital parts, one could have entertained such an argument but when the injuries are found all over the body, the irresistible conclusion would be that they were inflicted in a murderous spree without aiming at any particular part of the body. For the same reason, the depth of the each of the injuries is not a relevant consideration. All the injuries cumulatively resulted in death.”

Discarding the contentions regarding possibility of altering the conviction to one for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Court observed–

“We have already seen that none of the exceptions provided in Section 300 IPC are attracted to the case at hand. On the contrary, we are convinced that the condemned prisoner acted in an extremely cruel manner and took undue advantage of his wife, who had given birth to a child three to four days ago, only with the intention to kill her. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the act of the condemned prisoner is nothing but murder within the meaning of Section 300 IPC.”

The Court also found enough evidence to conclude that the appellant attempted to commit murder of his minor daughter. A challenge was made to the convictions recorded under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, especially when the said offences were already covered under the ambit of the charge under Section 307, IPC. The Court, having regard for the stipulation made under Section 71 of the IPC, deemed it fit to set aside the conviction under Sections 324 and 326, while maintaining the conviction under Section 307, IPC.

So far as the justifiability of the imposition of death sentence was concerned, the Court found that the trial Court erred in swaying away by emotive forces and failed to balance the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Mishra remarked–

“The requirement of determining the balance between the two has not really been made, instead, the trial Court has digressed at length into the so-called emotional and psychological trauma suffered by the victim of this case. It has also dwelt upon, in great detail, the trauma suffered and to be suffered by the child victims. The trial Court has evidently been actuated by the desire to ensure a measure of justice for the child victim's mother and the children themselves for the wrong done to them. The trial Court has also referred to the community's sense of moral order and the victim's dignity.”

Consequently, upon independent assessment of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court deemed it proper to award the sentence of imprisonment life with a cap of 35 years of actual imprisonment before being eligible for pre-mature release. It further ordered rupees ten lakh compensation each to the two minor children of the couple, in addition to the compensation amount granted by the trial Court. Moreover, the DLSA, Khurda was ordered to continuously monitor the upbringing of the minor children until they attain majority.

Case Title: State of Odisha v. Sanjeet Dash @ Banku

Case No: DSREF No. 03 of 2024 & JCRLA No. 141 of 2024

Date of Judgment: August 25, 2026

Counsel for the State: Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Condemned Prisoner: Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 98

Click Here To Read/Download Order