Orissa HC commutes death penalty to life term of 2019 double-murder convict

The Orissa High Court ordered the death sentence of a man be commuted to life imprisonment for the commission of a brutal double murder case in 2019, saying that “it is well-settled law that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death”.

A Division Bench of Justices B P Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, taking note of the positive report of the authorities of the jail regarding the convict Niranjan Mallik on death row, commuted the capital punishment awarded by a lower court to a life term.

Advertisement

“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 a lesser sentence,” the Bench observed.

“We are therefore inclined to convert the sentence imposed on the appellant (convict) from death to life, but taking note of the severity of the offences, including the murder of two persons, we are of the view that the convict deserves life imprisonment for the rest of his life,” the Division Bench ordered in the judgment.

The convict Niranjan, on the intervening night of 16 and 17 January 2019, let loose a reign of terror at Odagaon vegetable market in Nayagarh district and committed the cold-blooded murder of a night watchman, Lochan Sethi, and a 70-year-old woman, Badani Pradhan, inside her house. Three other people, including the deceased Pradhan’s daughter, also sustained grievous injuries in the attack.

The commission of two murders, one attempt to murder, and two grievous hurts with lurking house trespass were charged against the convict under different heads prescribed in the Penal Code. A court in Nayagarh district, after examining 27 witnesses and adducing 94 documents, had awarded the death sentence to Mallik on 27 April 2024.

Upon thorough examination of the socio-economic background of the convict in the present case, it appears that he hails from the poor economic strata of society without having any criminal antecedents or adverse reports against his conduct.

As per the report of the jail authority submitted before this court, he is cordial to others, and no one spoke evil of him in his village; his conduct inside the jail is normal and cordial to other inmates. Nothing in his conduct, as per the report of the jail authority, would constitute an aggravating factor against him to confirm the death sentence. Regardless of the heinous crime committed by him, his conduct inside jail is quite satisfactory as per the report of the superintendent of the jail, and he also had no other antecedent than the present one to be counted against him to justify his death sentence, the Division Bench stated in the 53-page order.