Death sentence commuted to life after trial court failed to assess convict’s prospects of reform, Calcutta High Court rules

On 20 June 2023, during a quarrel at the house of the victim’s mother, Sujit Dey Bhowmik allegedly assaulted his wife, Mitali Dey Bhowmik, with an axe, causing fatal head injuries.

He also injured Mitali’s mother and grandmother when they attempted to intervene.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the de facto complainant, the minor son of the appellant and deceased, two injured eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recovery of the axe allegedly pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement.

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 498A and 326 IPC, but convicted him under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

He was sentenced to death under Section 302 and to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 307 IPC.

The matter came before the High Court through the death reference and the appellant’s connected criminal appeal.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, including whether the eyewitness, medical and recovery evidence was reliable and legally admissible.

Whether the recovery of the axe pursuant to the appellant’s statement was proved in accordance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Whether the death penalty imposed under Section 302 IPC satisfied the “rarest of rare” standard after consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 307 IPC concerning murder and attempt to murder, and Section 235 Cr.P.C. governing conviction and sentencing after trial.

It considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, under which only so much of information supplied by an accused in police custody as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible.

The Court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, for the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death is an exception reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, requiring a balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

It further applied Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 INSC 606, and Aman Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 INSC 424, requiring courts to obtain material concerning prison conduct, psychological or psychiatric condition, and the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation before imposing or confirming capital punishment.

The Court also referred to Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747, which requires full weight to be given to mitigating circumstances.

The Court found the prosecution evidence consistent and mutually corroborative.

The minor son’s account of the appellant striking the deceased with the axe was found reliable after the trial court had satisfied itself of his competency, and his testimony was corroborated by the two injured eyewitnesses, the post-mortem report, injury reports and treatment records.

The alleged inconsistencies concerning the presence of the de facto complainant and the recovery of the weapon were not considered material.

The recovery evidence was supported by the Investigating Officer and panch witnesses, and the appellant himself acknowledged during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the axe had been recovered after he led the police to the place of recovery.

Accordingly, the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was upheld.

However, the death sentence was found unsustainable because the trial court had failed to obtain a prison conduct report, assess the appellant’s psychological condition, or properly examine the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.

The High Court considered the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents, satisfactory prison conduct, socio-economic background, minor son, aged mother, counselling and the Probation Officer’s opinion that reform was possible.

It also considered that the offence followed a quarrel and occurred shortly after the family had taken tea together, suggesting absence of established premeditation.

These mitigating circumstances prevented the case from meeting the “rarest of rare” threshold, notwithstanding the brutality of the offence.

It answered the sentencing issue against confirmation of the death penalty, holding that the case did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” standard and that the trial court had failed to undertake the mandatory sentencing inquiry regarding reformation and rehabilitation.

The death sentence was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life, while the sentence under Section 307 IPC, including the fine, was maintained.

The appellant was granted set-off for the period already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C.; the death warrant was directed to be modified, and the correctional home was directed to record the commutation.

Both the death reference and the criminal appeal were disposed of accordingly.