Sentence Hearing Should Be Meaningful, Not Mere Formality: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty

The Orissa High Court while disapproving of Trial Court pronouncing conviction judgement and sentence on the same day held that sentence hearing is should be meaningful as it is not a mere formality.

The Court was considering a Criminal Appeal filed by Accused Persons against death sentence awarded to them.

The division bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed, "Being satisfied that the learned Trial Court has not acted properly while hearing on the question of sentence with respect to the appellants in the manner it was expected to and that the law envisages with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be either on record or with such further opportunity to furnish the necessary information or data thereon, this Court is of the humble view that in view of the settled position of law discussed herein before, for a purposeful and meaningful hearing on sentence, the appellants should be afforded an opportunity at present inviting from them such data to be furnished in the shape of affidavits and also to direct the Jail Authority to do the needful in that regard."

The Accused Persons were represented by Advocate Satya Ranjan Mulia while the State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Debashis Tripathy.

Facts of the Case

The Condemned Prisoners faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 302/449/363/364/394/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court 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. No finding was recorded relating to the charge under Section 449/34 of IPC.

On the same day of pronouncing the impugned judgment of finding the Appellants guilty of the charges, the hearing on the question of sentence was also held and concluded and on the very day, the death sentences were imposed. The same is aggrieved herein by the Appellant.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sou Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2022, wherein the Court, took into consideration as to whether, after recording the conviction for a capital offence, the Court is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on sentence, deemed it proper for a reference and decision by a larger Bench.

Since there was lack of a uniform framework on sentencing aspect, the Supreme Court initiated the reference with a purpose to work out the modalities vis-à-vis psychological evaluation, stage of receipt of evidence to highlight the mitigating circumstances and need and necessity to build institutional capacity in that regard. It further referred to Supreme Court's decision in Dagdu -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra wherein it was held that the Court may in appropriate cases have to adjourn the matter in order to provide the accused sufficient time to produce necessary data and to make his contentions on the question of sentence and that perhaps must inevitably happen when the conviction is recorded for the first time by a higher Court.

The Court also cited another Supreme Court's decision in Bachan Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab wherein, stress was laid on fairness afforded to a convict by a separate hearing as an important safeguard to uphold imposition of death sentence in the rarest of rare cases by relying upon the recommendations of the 48th Law Commission Report and observing that in all cases where imposing of capital punishment is a choice of sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on record and part of the prosecution evidence leading to conviction, whereas, the accused can scarcely be expected to place mitigating circumstances for the reason that the stage for doing so is after conviction, as it would place him at a hopeless disadvantage tilting the scales heavily against him, an opinion was formed to have a uniform approach on the question of sentence granting real and meaningful opportunity as opposed to a formal hearing to the accused and hence, made the reference to a larger Bench.

"Taking into account the fact that in the present case, the judgment was delivered on 27.09.2024 and on the very day, hearing on the question of sentence was also held and the sentences to the appellants have been imposed, in the considered view of this Court, there has been no proper and meaningful hearing as such which is necessary in order to do complete justice. In fact, there appears to be no opportunity afforded to the appellants to submit any such material in support of the mitigating circumstances during and in course of hearing on the question of sentence. 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-‡-vis the appellants before imposing the sentences though reasons are assigned in the body of the judgment. 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," the Court observed.

It stressed that either there is a need for considering the mitigating circumstances already on record received as evidence during trial or besides such evidence, further opportunity should be provided to a convict to bring on record all such circumstances favourable to him at the time of hearing on sentence.

The Court accordingly asked the Appellants to submit all the materials on mitigating circumstances by filling affidavits stating therein the particulars for consideration of the Court on or before 30th June, 2025.

Cause Title: Prakash Behera vs. State of Odisha

Appearances:

Appellants- Advocate Satya Ranjan Mulia, Advocate Ramesh Ch. Maharana

Respondent- Additional Government Advocate Debashis Tripathy.

Click here to read/ download Order