Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted Of Murdering Wife, 18-Month-Old Daughter

The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife and 18-month-old daughter to life imprisonment, holding that the circumstances of the crime did not justify classifying it as one of the “rarest of rare” cases warranting capital punishment.

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De upheld the conviction of Lal Singh Oraon under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code but declined to confirm the death sentence imposed by the trial court.

The Court held that the relationship between a husband and wife, or a father and daughter, could not by itself be the basis for concluding that a case fell within the rarest-of-rare category. It also took into account the convict's socio-economic circumstances, lack of employment, alcohol dependence, satisfactory conduct in custody and prospects of reformation and rehabilitation.

“Poverty, unemployment, craving for alcohol, inability to satisfy such craving due to refusal of the wife to give him money to drink, the socio-economic background, are the mitigating circumstances which persuade us to commute the death sentence,” the Bench observed.

The Court further held that the crime was not a premeditated, cold-blooded murder that had shaken the collective conscience of society, adding that the possibility of the convict's reformation and rehabilitation could not be ruled out.

## Background

The case arose from the murder of Sakhi Oraon, aged about 26 years, and her 18-month-old daughter at their home in Looksan Tea Estate, Jalpaiguri, in March 2023.

According to the prosecution, Sakhi's mother, Budhni Oraon, lodged a complaint on March 27, 2023, after learning from neighbours that her daughter and granddaughter had been killed. She found both victims lying dead on a bed, while Lal Singh was present at the scene with an injury to his abdomen following an alleged attempt to commit suicide.

During the trial, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, the testimony of witnesses who reached the house after the incident, and an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to his brother. The prosecution also relied on medical evidence indicating that the injuries sustained by the victims were homicidal in nature.

The defence challenged the reliability of the prosecution's case, pointing to discrepancies concerning the date and time of the incident, the absence of eyewitnesses, alleged lapses in the investigation and the dependence on the extra-judicial confession. It also argued that the circumstances did not warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

The Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri, convicted Lal Singh under Sections 302 and 309 IPC on January 30, 2025. By an order dated February 4, 2025, the trial court sentenced him to death for murder and awarded him one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 309 IPC. The death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation.

## High Court's findings on conviction and sentence

While examining the evidence, the High Court rejected the defence's challenge to the prosecution's account of the incident and found that the testimony of the witnesses was consistent on material aspects. It held that the alleged extra-judicial confession was corroborated by the other circumstances and medical evidence.

The Bench also found that the discrepancies regarding the date of the incident could be explained by the difference between the night of March 26 and the early hours of March 27, 2023. It held that the delay alleged by the defence in reporting the incident did not render the prosecution's case unreliable.

However, the Court found fault with the trial court's approach to sentencing. It noted that the trial judge had failed to obtain a report on the convict's conduct in custody and the possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation before imposing the death penalty.

Relying on the Supreme Court's guidelines on capital sentencing, including the requirement to assess aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Bench emphasised that the circumstances of the offender must be considered alongside the circumstances of the crime.

The Court noted that the jail conduct report showed that Lal Singh had no criminal antecedents and had not been involved in any adverse activity during his incarceration. His conduct in custody had been satisfactory, and he was undergoing psychiatric treatment at Jalpaiguri Government Medical College and Hospital. The psychologist and the jail superintendent had assessed him as having a reasonable probability of reformation and rehabilitation.

The Bench held that these mitigating circumstances ought to have been considered before the trial court imposed the extreme penalty.

Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment and directed that the trial court's death warrant be modified in terms of its judgment. It also directed that the period of detention already undergone be set off against the sentence in accordance with law.

Case: *State of West Bengal v. Lal Singh Oraon*, D.R. 01 of 2025

Bench: Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De

Date of Judgment: October 14, 2026