“Taking Note of the Severity of the Offences, the Convict Deserves Life Imprisonment for Rest of His Life”: Orissa High Court Converts Death Penalty into Life Term After Confirming Convictions
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash delivered its judgment on August 12, 2025, modifying the death sentence imposed on a convict to life imprisonment for the rest of his life. The Bench confirmed the conviction for offences including murder, attempt to murder, grievous hurt, and lurking house trespass. However, upon a detailed evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court concluded that while the offences were heinous, the convict could not be foreclosed from the possibility of reformation. The Court thus directed that the death penalty imposed by the trial court be converted into imprisonment for the entirety of his natural life.
According to the prosecution’s case, the incidents occurred on the intervening night of 16th and 17th January 2019 in Odagaon town, Nayagarh district. The sequence of events began at around 2:00 AM and continued into the early morning. The convict attacked multiple victims in separate but connected incidents, resulting in two deaths and serious injuries to three other individuals.
The first incident involved Lochan Sethi, a night watchman at the vegetable market. The convict appeared suddenly and struck him with a wooden plank on the head and other parts of the body. Lochan succumbed to his injuries. Shortly thereafter, at around 3:00 AM, the convict entered the premises of Sanjibnee Clinic by scaling a wall and attacked Badani Pradhan, who was sweeping the area outside her quarters. He assaulted her on the head with the same weapon, leading to her death at the spot.
Sulochana Pradhan, Badani’s daughter, who was pregnant at the time, rushed to intervene. The convict struck her with the plank, stabbed her multiple times in the abdomen, and inserted a pastry roller into her private parts. Witnesses including Dr. P.W.17 and his wife P.W.6 testified to having seen the assault from their terrace. Sulochana survived after undergoing treatment at AIIMS Bhubaneswar but lost her seven-month pregnancy.
The sequence continued when Amuli Barik, an elderly woman on her way to Raghunath temple, was attacked by the convict with the same wooden plank, sustaining head and limb injuries. Medical reports confirmed fractures and lacerations. Finally, the convict attempted to attack Dambaru Sahu while he was opening his shop. In the scuffle, Dambaru managed to snatch the weapon, but the convict bit off the tip of his finger.
The prosecution charged the convict under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 325 (grievous hurt), 326 (causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons), and 458 (lurking house trespass) of the IPC. During the trial, 27 witnesses were examined, 94 documents were adduced, and six material objects, including the weapon of offence, were exhibited.
The trial court convicted the accused and imposed the death penalty for the charge under Section 302 IPC, besides imprisonment under other sections. The matter came before the High Court in the form of a death sentence reference and a criminal appeal.
The defence raised the plea of insanity, arguing that the convict had previously undergone psychiatric treatment and his actions indicated mental instability. The defence also argued the absence of motive. The prosecution maintained that the offences were deliberate, brutal, and premeditated.
The Court first examined the nature of deaths caused. It stated that the deaths of Lochan Sethi and Badani Pradhan were “homicidal in nature from the circumstances and injuries sustained by them.” The post-mortem reports confirmed fractures, ruptured skulls, and internal injuries consistent with homicidal assault. The Court recorded: “Having analyzed all such materials and statements of witnesses, there could be no hesitation determining that the deceased-Lochana and Badani died homicidal nature of death.”
On the complicity of the convict, the Bench observed: “From afore-stated analysis of the testimony of the witnesses, the complicity of the convict in committing the death of both the deceased, Lochana and Badani, is well established beyond all reasonable doubts. It is not the case of circumstantial evidence only, but the assault committed by the convict on the deceased persons is proved through direct evidence.”
Addressing the defence of insanity, the Court rejected the claim. It noted: “The convict did not adduce any defence evidence. 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.” The Court further observed: “Mere absence of motive for the crime without any corroboration with previous insanity cannot be the determinative factor to rule in favour of his insanity in committing the crime.”
The Court relied on precedents including Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, reiterating that legal insanity must be proven and that the presumption is of sanity. The Bench concluded: “Therefore, the intention or mens rea on the part of convict is found established from the circumstances and the actions narrated by the witnesses.”
On the issue of joinder of charges, the Court stated: “Admittedly the accused (convict) has not raised any objection with regard to joinder of such charges at the time of framing of charge or in course of trial. Undoubtedly, mis-joinder of charges is curable under Section 464 & 465 of the Cr.P.C. provided no failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.”
Turning to sentencing, the Court examined aggravating and mitigating factors as mandated under Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. The Bench recorded: “Regardless of the heinous of 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.”
The Court considered detailed reports submitted by the jail authorities and medical professionals. It noted that the convict had a history of psychiatric treatment but was presently stable, cordial, and engaged in normal activities in prison. The Court stated: “Taking into consideration of the report of the jail authority in entirety, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of the convict being reformed and rehabilitated, foreclosing the alternative of lesser sentence.”
The Court issued a clear directive modifying the sentence. It recorded: “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 rest of his life.”
It further ordered: “With regard to victim compensation, we affirm the views and finding of learned trial Judge in this regard.”
The Bench confirmed the conviction under Sections 302, 307, 325, 326, and 458 IPC, and the sentences under Sections 307, 325, 326, and 458 were upheld. It was directed that all sentences shall run concurrently, subject to set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The death reference and the criminal appeal were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. J.K. Panda, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik
Case Number: DSREF No.2 of 2024 & JCRLA No.62 of 2024
Bench: Justice B.P. Routray, Justice Chittaranjan Dash
