'Sentence Hearing Not Mere Formality': Orissa High Court Expresses Concern Over Conviction & Imposition Of Death Penalty On Same Day

While allowing two death-row convicts to highlight 'mitigating factors' in their favour through affidavits at the appellate stage, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –

“Law is well settled that hearing on the question of sentence has to be real and effective and not a mere formality; if a meaningful hearing is not taken up by a Court while considering the sentence to be imposed and inflicted upon the convict, it is likely to cause severe prejudice to him.”

Case Background

The condemned prisoners/death-row convicts were accused of committing murders of three members of family by slitting their throats. The Additional Sessions Judge, Athmallik (ASJ), through his judgment dated 27.09.2024, had found them guilty under Sections 302/364/201/34 of IPC, however acquitted them of the charges under Sections 363/394/34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Interestingly, though charge was framed under Section 449/34 of the IPC, the ASJ neither convicted nor acquitted them for the said offence.

Furthermore, the trial Court went on to hold the sentence hearing on the very same day of conviction and imposed various sentences for commission of the above offences, including the extreme sentence of death for commission of murder. The ASJ submitted the proceedings to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence as per the mandate of Section 366 of CrPC.

Court's Observations

When the matter was taken up for hearing on Wednesday, the High Court observed some glaring defects in the judgment of the ASJ as in omission to record any finding so far as charge under Section 449/34 of IPC is concerned, which was also orally highlighted by the presiding Judge Justice Sahoo. Most importantly, the Court was displeased by the fact that the trial Court did not provide reasonable and meaningful opportunity to the convicts to lead mitigating evidence in their favour and hurriedly passed the harshest of sentences.

To consider as to whether the trial Court was justified in its approach, the Bench referred to a suo moto criminal writ petition [In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 777] initiated by the Supreme Court taking judicial notice of difference of opinion and approach on the question as to whether after recording the conviction for a capital offence, the Court is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on sentence. This question was referred to a larger Bench.

Notably, in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217, the top Court had asked the counsel for the State to get instructions from jail authorities on the following aspects: (i) the conduct of the petitioner in jail; (ii) information on petitioner's involvement in any other case; (iii) details of the petitioner acquiring education in jail; (iv) details of petitioner's medical records; and (v) any other relevant information.

The Court further cited the landmark decision in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510 wherein the Apex Court underlined the importance of a separate hearing and the necessity of background analysis of the convict with reference to the social milieu, age, educational qualification, past-life trauma, family circumstances, psychological evaluation and post-conviction conduct being the relevant factors while taking a call as to whether death penalty should be imposed.

“The Trial Court's order dated 27.09.2024 on hearing the question of sentence does not reveal as to if any such exercise was undertaken affording the appellants to submit material with regard to the mitigating circumstances. The Trial Court while hearing on sentence, as it is further made to reveal from its order dated 27.09.2024, has not considered or for that matter, discussed in detail the mitigating circumstances vis-à-vis the appellants before imposing the sentences though reasons are assigned in the body of the judgment,” it noted.

Accordingly, the Court asked the appellants to submit all materials on mitigating circumstances by filing affidavits on or before June 30, 2025. It also directed the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Angul, where the convicts are presently kept, to collect detailed information with reports on the past life, psychological conditions and post-conviction conduct of the appellants and other relevant materials by taking assistance of the officials (medical officers, probation officers etc.) concerned.

Pertinent to mention, while hearing another death reference [State of Odisha v. Sk. Asif Alli @ Md. Asif Iqbal & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 33] last year, a Bench headed by Justice Sahoo had taken suo motu cognizance of need for background analysis of the convicts, so as to ascertain mitigating circumstances in their favour, before imposing the extreme sentence of death. The Court had then observed –

“Such an exercise is considered to be absolutely expedient in order to advance the cause of justice the intent and purpose being to provide a fair amount of opportunity for the appellants to bring on record all such mitigating circumstances to be weighed against the aggravating circumstances since a balance is to be struck while taking a final decision on sentence in juxtaposition to the sentences imposed by the Trial Court.”

Case Title: State of Odisha v. Prakash Behera & Anr.

Case No: DSREF No. 4 of 2024 along with CRLA No. 1166 of 2024

Date of Order: June 18, 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Advocate along with Mr. Ramesh Ch. Maharana, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 78