Holding that the possibility of reformation cannot be ruled out, the Orissa High Court commuted the death sentence of a convict charged with committing the grievous offense of two murders and grievous injuries on three others, to life imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. The ruling was delivered by the division bench of Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash.

Facts:

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused committed the murder of two persons, namely, Lochan Sethi (male) and Badani Pradhan (female), and caused injuries to three others, namely, Sulochana Pradhan (female), Amulya Barik (female), and Dambaru (male).

The chain of events began on the intervening night of 16th and 17th January, 2019 between 2.30 A.M. up-to early morning. On that day, the convict, armed with a wooden plank, suddenly appeared before the deceased, Lochan, who was working as a Night Watchman in the Odagaon vegetable market, and struck him on the head and other parts of the body.

Around 3.00 P.M. the same day, the convict went to Sanjibnee Clinic in Odagaon, where the deceased, Badani, was sweeping the front portion of her house. He scaled the boundary wall and dealt a blow on her head with a wooden plank, causing her death on the spot.

On hearing the commotion, her daughter, Sulochana, rushed to the scene. The convict assaulted Sulochana with the same wooden plank, inflicted multiple stab injuries on her, and inserted a pastry roller (Belena Kathi) into her private part. At the time of the assault, Sulochana was seven months pregnant. Hearing the screams of mother and daughter some passerby entered the premises, the accused fled from the scene wearing a 'ladies night gown' kept outside to hide his identity .

The accused also assaulted an elderly woman while she was on her way to a temple, striking her on the head and other parts of the body. He then assaulted another man who was opening his shop .

The Sessions Court convicted him and imposed the death penalty, but it was challenged in the High Court.

Arguments before the High Court:

The Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing for the State argued that the convict’s act of double murder and serious injuries to three others was brutal and gruesome. He further submitted that the offence falls under the rarest of rare category, and therefore, the death penalty awarded by the Sessions Court should be confirmed.

Amicus Curiae, J.K. Panda, appearing for the Respondent, submitted that the, “The convict was suffering from mental insanity or unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the offence, and he had no such intention either to kill or attempt to kill or to cause injuries”.

Hearing the submissions the High Court soon pointed out that, “Not a single medical document was produced before learned trial court to justify unsoundness of mind of the convict at any previous point of time and nothing is also produced on record regarding his insanity or unsound mind afterwards following the incident”

Rejecting the plea of insanity the court stated, “The plea of insanity of mind is required to be proved on record beyond doubt and absence of motive is an additional factor to such materials brought on record to prove the insanity”.

High Court’s Analysis:

The Court referred to Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, emphasizing that in cases involving capital punishment, the trial court must elicit detailed information from both the accused and the State. Pursuant to this requirement, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Berhampur, where the convict was lodged, to submit reports concerning the convict’s past life, conduct in jail, psychological condition, and present health status.

The report indicated that the convict belonged to a poor economic background, had a history of psychiatric problems, but maintained a good image in society. He was reported to be on cordial terms with fellow inmates and jail staff, remained in good physical health, and was under regular medication for bipolar disorder.

The Senior Superintendent observed that “the convict’s behavior is quite normal. He prays to God and reads the Holy Gita and daily newspapers regularly, and his behavior towards others is very normal.”

The Court also placed reliance on Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, wherein it was held that life imprisonment may only be rendered futile when the objective of reformation is found to be unachievable.

Further, the High Court referred to Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 916, a triple murder case, to underscore the principle that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is a vital mitigating factor. The Court reiterated the settled position of law that before awarding the sentence of death, the judiciary must carefully consider whether the convict can be reformed and rehabilitated, as this aspect weighs significantly in the balancing exercise between capital punishment and life imprisonment.

Final Order:

After analysing the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, the High Court was convinced that there existed scope for reformation and rehabilitation of the convict. The Court observed:

“Regardless of the heinous nature of the crime committed by him, his conduct inside jail is quite satisfactory as per the report of the Superintendent of Jail and he had also no other antecedent than the present one to be counted against him to justify his death sentence. He was and is a normal man except committing the offence prior to and after the occurrence. Taking into consideration the report of the jail authority in its entirety, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of the convict being reformed and rehabilitated, foreclosing the alternative of lesser sentence. We are therefore inclined to convert the sentence imposed on the Appellant from death to life, but taking note of the severity of the offences including murder of two persons, we are of the view that the convict deserves life imprisonment for the rest of his life.”

Accordingly, the Death Sentence as well as the Jail Criminal Appeal were disposed of.

CASE DETAILS: State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik & tagged appeal (DSREF No. 02 of 2024 & JCRLA No. 62 of 2024)