The Orissa High Court, in a landmark judgment delivered on October 28, 2024, upheld the life imprisonment of Raikishore Jena for the brutal murder of his wife, Benga @ Sinia Jena, rejecting the defense’s argument that the crime was committed under “grave and sudden provocation.” The bench, comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, ruled that a wife asking her husband to wait for food while cooking cannot constitute sufficient provocation for an act of extreme violence.
The Incident
The case revolved around a tragic event on September 25, 2008, in Kuansha village, Jajpur district, Odisha. Raikishore Jena, upon returning from his field, asked his wife for food. When she requested him to wait as the cooking was still in progress, Jena, in a fit of rage, fetched a ‘katuri’ (a sharp weapon) and inflicted multiple fatal blows on her neck, face, and head. The couple’s minor daughter, Dipika Jena, was an eyewitness to the horrifying act.
Following the attack, the deceased’s body was discovered, and the murder weapon, along with blood-stained evidence, was recovered from the scene. The case was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.
Key Legal Issues
1. Grave and Sudden Provocation:
The defense argued that the incident arose from grave and sudden provocation as the husband, hungry after a day of work, acted in an uncontrolled moment of rage. The defense pleaded to reduce the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC.
2. Reliability of the Eyewitness (Child Witness):
The appellant challenged the reliance on the testimony of the minor daughter, asserting potential tutoring during her stay with relatives after the incident.
3. Homicidal Nature of Death:
The prosecution had to establish that the death was not accidental or natural but a deliberate act of homicide.
Observations and Findings of the Court
1. Homicidal Death Established:
The court confirmed the homicidal nature of the death, citing the post-mortem report by Dr. Sudhiranjan Nayak. The report detailed nine severe cut injuries caused by a sharp weapon, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
2. Eyewitness Credibility:
The court placed significant weight on the testimony of the couple’s 13-year-old daughter, Dipika Jena, who vividly described the events leading to the murder. The bench noted her consistency during cross-examination and found no evidence of tutoring.
3. Rejection of Grave and Sudden Provocation Argument:
The court ruled that merely asking someone to wait for food does not amount to grave and sudden provocation as defined under Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. The judgment emphasized that the appellant’s reaction was disproportionate, deliberate, and cruel, involving repeated blows on the victim’s vital body parts.
The bench observed, “A housewife cannot be said to have caused grave and sudden provocation to her hungry husband when she requests him to wait for a while as the preparation of food is under process.”
Verdict and Sentencing
The court upheld the trial court’s judgment, maintaining the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment. It found no merit in the plea for leniency, despite the appellant having served 16 years in custody.
The court concluded that the act did not meet the criteria for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as it lacked sudden quarrel, mutual provocation, or unintentionality. The court remarked, “The deliberate manner of the assault and the selection of vital body parts negates the possibility of a momentary loss of control.”
