"Voluntary Intoxication Not A Ground For Exemption": Orissa HC Upholds Conviction Of Son For Beheading Mother
The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of a son for beheading his mother while observing that voluntary intoxication is not a ground for exemption from liability for the commission of murder.
While upholding the life imprisonment sentence of the accused for ‘matricide’ under Section 302 of the IPC, the Court clarified that the IPC did not provide for any provision which could potentially protect an accused from liability for the commission of a heinous crime like murder merely because “he chose to intoxicate himself before executing his culpable intention.”
A Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed, “It is needless to mention that a person cannot seek exemption from liability for commission of murder on the ground of ‘voluntary intoxication’. The Penal Code does not provide for any provision which can potentially protect an accused from liability for commission of any crime, much less a heinous crime like murder, merely because he chose to intoxicate himself before executing his culpable intention.”
Amicus Curiae Sobhan Panigrahi appeared for the appellant, while Addl. SC Priyabrata Tripathy represented the respondent.
According to the FIR lodged by the President of the village committee, the son was accused of beheading his sexagenarian mother and throwing her body in the backyard of the house. The headless body was found by villagers, which led to the investigation. Upon being questioned, the accused led the police to his room and brought out a bag containing the severed head of his deceased mother.
The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the accused’s minor son, who allegedly witnessed the crime. The minor son had described how his father strangulated his grandmother, severed her head with a sickle, and transported the head in a bag. This testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and the recovery of the severed head and the murder weapon, a sickle, which was found stained with blood.
The defence argued that the conviction was based on the unreliable testimony of a child witness. They also claimed the accused was under the influence of ‘ganja’ during the crime. However, the trial court dismissed these arguments and convicted the accused for murder.
The High Court held that not only was the version of the child witness “clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy,” but it was also corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the head of the deceased at the instance of the accused.
“The instant case has exposed this Court to a very unfortunate set of facts where a son did not think twice before killing his creator, i.e. the mother. As per the above position of law, the knowledge of the appellant for commission of the crime can be well inferred, notwithstanding the fact that he was intoxicated. Furthermore, no evidence was led from the side of the defence to show that the intoxication was so intense that it affected the ability of the appellant to form intention to commit the crime,” the Court stated.
“Therefore, when the evidence is consistent and wellcorroborated, the defence cannot be permitted to derail the prosecution case flippantly raising a superfluous plea of intoxication,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “the learned trial Court is quite justified in holding the appellant guilty under section 302 of the I.P.C.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Rankanidhi Behera v. State of Odisha