A Sessions Court in Odisha has awarded death penalty to a 65-year-old man–previously convicted for murder of his wife, for killing his 12-year-old niece by setting her on fire while he was out of prison on parole.

Finding the case to be a “rarest of rare” one, Rohit Lal Panda, Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act, Berhampur held–

“Admittedly, the man was a life convict. He had caused horrible incident of child burning and murdered the deceased child of 12 years old. It is a very rarest in rare cases of murder of a minor child by burning with petrol/kerosene and fire. Considering the cruelty and brutality of the convict, and pains and sufferings meted out to the deceased victim until her death and the convict himself being already a life convict, minimum prescribed sentence would be unjust and improper. It is very dangerous to the society to live with the accused anymore.”

In the early hours of 26.04.2022, the informant (a stranger) went to the Baidyanathpur Police Station in the district of Ganjam and presented a written report to the effect that while returning to his house on the previous night at about 09:30 PM, he saw a huge gathering. When he rushed to the spot, he saw a young girl/deceased victim was set on fire. It was alleged that he along with others tried to put out the fire. The mother of the victim spontaneously told that her brother (the accused/the victim's uncle) had set her on fire.

Based upon such information, the police registered an FIR under Section 307 (attempt to murder)/326 (grievous hurt by dangerous means) of the IPC. The victim was taken to the MKCG Hospital, Berhampur immediately. It was found that she had sustained 81% of burn injuries. Due to her worsening condition, she was referred to the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for further treatment. She stayed under treatment for four days before succumbing to her injuries on 30.04.2022.

Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 354-A(iv) (making sexually coloured remarks) of the IPC and Sections 8 (sexual assault) and 12 (sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act. The Court accordingly framed charges and proceeded for the recording of evidence.

So far as the charge under Section 354-A(iv) for making sexually coloured remarks was concerned, the Court noted that except some passing comments made by the mother of the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC, there is no other evidence to establish or corroborate such allegations.

“There could have been such coloured remarks by the accused on the beauty of the deceased victim and he had whimsically threatened to destroy her beauty, but the facts stated before the Magistrate on the matter of sexual harassment are not stated by the witness during her evidence before the court. No other witness has also stated on this aspect before the court, most apparently they were not aware of the same, because such coloured sexy remarks had been made within the four walls of the house,” the Judge observed.

As a corollary, the Court held that the prosecution was unable to bring home the charges against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 354-A(iv) of IPC as well as Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, only the charge under Section 302, IPC remained to be proved.

The mother of the victim was found to be the singular ocular and occurrence witness to testify the events that unfolded on the night of the unfortunate incident. She deposed that her deceased-daughter was sleeping inside the house and she was also asleep near her. She further stated that the accused poured petrol on the deceased and set her on fire while she was inside the mosquito net. Hearing the victim's shout, she proceeded to put out the fire.

Apart from her evidence, the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of the doctor who examined the victim in MKCG Hospital on police requisition. She stated that the victim suffered 81% burn injury, but she was still conscious when brought to the hospital. She recorded the victim's dying declaration, in the presence of several witnesses, anticipating her death.

The defence primarily took three pleas to exonerate the accused from the charge of murder. Firstly, it was contended that the source of procurement of petrol is not proved by the prosecution, making its allegations obscure. Secondly, the defence argued that the dying declaration of the girl was recorded as per the version of her mother and she deliberately implicated her brother-accused in order to save her son.

Thirdly, it was contended that the son of victim's mother was reeling under insanity and he was jealous that his mother was fond of the deceased more than him, despite she not being her own daughter. Therefore, the insane son poured petrol and set the victim on fire. Nevertheless, to save her own son, the mother tried to falsely implicate her accused-brother, who was already undergoing a life imprisonment.

The Court, however, found all these pleas to be baseless and not backed by any substantive evidence. It immaculately held that source of petrol is not a relevant fact, rather the identity of culprit is most important to determine. Thus, it held–

“The fact that the local people while assaulting the accused, had also assaulted the brother of the deceased and then both of them had been taken to the police station immediately, is not enough to believe that the deceased's brother is the real culprit and the accused has been falsely implicated. It creates a suspicion at the initial stage, but the police had investigated the case in details to find out the real culprit. In the absence of any eye witnesses, the police would examine and interrogate many persons from different angles. There is absolutely no evidence on record that the insane brother of the deceased had burnt the deceased for jealousy or otherwise.”

The accused also took the plea that he had given Rs. 40,000/- to the deceased's mother a few months back. Instead of returning the same, she tried to settle score by falsely implicating him in this heinous case. He also took the plea of alibi. However, the Court did not find any of the pleas to be worthy of belief. The Judge remarked–

“She [mother of the victim] seems to be a very kind hearted lady, and hence she had sympathy for the accused, though a life convict. She herself stood surety for the accused brother while the accused was suffering life imprisonment and got him released on parole, and thereafter also she was helping the accused by accommodating him at her small house. There is absolutely no ground to believe that she had enmity or hostility with the accused brother at any point of time prior to the occurrence. When the accused himself was a life convict, who had been released on parole, it can never be believed that the accused had given Rs.40,000/- to his sister on credit, and there was dispute between them, and he had been falsely implicated to save her own son. After all the accused is also her own brother, whom she had assisted to be released on parole.”

Resultantly, the Court was constrained to employ the provision under Section 106 of the Evidence Act which puts a reverse burden on the accused to explain the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. The Court held that since the accused was present at the site of occurrence, it is incumbent upon him to explain the circumstances under which the victim caught fire. As he was unable to give any satisfactory explanation, it would be a “natural presumption” to hold that the accused has committed the crime.

Accordingly, the Court held the accused held guilty of committing gruesome murder of his niece and convicted him under Section 302, IPC. Considering the fact that he was already a life convict having previously murdered his wife, the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 303, IPC was held to be inadequate. Hence, the Court deemed it proper to impose the severest sentence of death upon the accused by observing–

“Earlier there was a separate provision in Sec.303 of IPC which prescribed mandatory sentence of death in case of life convict. But the same has been repealed, and then while enacting Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the subsequent days, a similar provision has been made with an alternative sentence of life imprisonment until remainder of the natural life of the convict. But it is the desire of the society that such a life convict should be given death sentence. Under the above premises, the maximum sentence, which is nothing but death penalty, would be just and appropriate to meet the ends of justice to the deceased family as well as the society at large.”

Case Title: State of Odisha v. Sipriyan Digal

Case No: G.R. Case No.79/2022/ T.R.No.28/2024 (FTSC)

Date of Judgment: June 29, 2026

Date of Sentence: June 30, 2026

Counsel for the State/Prosecution: Dr. Siva Prasad Mishra, Special Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Manoj Pattnaik, Advocate/State Defence Counsel (SDC)

Click Here To Read/Download Order