Man’s death sentence for killing wife and toddler commuted to life, Calcutta High Court rules

The accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the deaths of his wife and 18-month-old daughter and for attempting suicide.

The trial court sentenced him to death for murder, subject to confirmation, and to one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 309 IPC; he did not appeal.

The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the accused’s presence with the victims, his brother’s testimony that the accused confessed immediately after the deaths, the recovery of weapons, and medical evidence that the accused’s injury was self-inflicted.

In the death reference, the High Court considered challenges to the reliability and completeness of the evidence and to the death sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, through circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession, that the accused committed the murders, notwithstanding the alleged discrepancies and investigative lapses.

2. Whether the accused’s failure to explain the deaths could support an inference of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the murders fell within the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty, having regard to aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the accused’s prospects of reformation.

Sections 302 and 309 IPC govern murder and attempted suicide, while Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerns sentencing after conviction.

Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must first establish foundational facts; only then may an accused’s failure to explain facts especially within their knowledge provide an additional link in a circumstantial chain, and it cannot cure an otherwise incomplete chain.

Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain consistent only with guilt; an extra-judicial confession is inherently weak and requires careful scrutiny, being capable of reliance where voluntary, truthful, confidence-inspiring and sufficiently corroborated (*Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu*).

Investigative lapses do not by themselves require acquittal if the substantive evidence is independently reliable.

Under *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* and *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab*, death is an exceptional sentence, imposed only after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and finding life imprisonment inadequate.

*Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh* requires relevant mitigation, including jail conduct and prospects of reformation, to be considered in capital sentencing.

The High Court rejected the alleged delay and date discrepancies, finding that the incident occurred during the night of 26–27 March 2023 and that the reporting and inquest sequence was explained by the police records and testimony.

It found the brother’s account consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, the accused’s self-inflicted injury, the recovered weapons and the medical evidence; the immediate confession was voluntary and supported by those circumstances.

The victims were last seen with the accused, and the deaths occurred within the bedroom; the prosecution established the foundational circumstances before the court considered the accused’s failure to give a plausible explanation under Section 106.

The absence of fingerprint evidence was an investigative lapse but did not displace the otherwise cogent evidence.

On sentence, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered mitigation or obtained the required correctional material.

The accused’s lack of antecedents, satisfactory prison conduct, treatment and assessed prospects of rehabilitation, together with the circumstances surrounding the crime, meant that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold.

It directed that the sentence warrant be modified accordingly and that the period of detention be set off in accordance with Section 428 CrPC; the death reference was disposed of.