Calcutta High Court Rejects Trial Court's Reliance On 'Vedic Marriage Mantras' To Award Death Penalty To Man For Killing Wife, Commutes Sentence
The Calcutta High Court took exception to a trial court's reasoning that the murder of the appellant's wife amounted to a “rarest of rare” case because he had forgotten the “love, affection, contribution and sacrifice” of his spouse despite the Vedic mantras exchanged during their marriage.
Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De noted that the trial court had also been particularly influenced by the fact that the appellant brutally murdered his wife in broad daylight at her father's house and in the presence of her family members.
Describing the act as “extremely brutal, diabolical, cold blooded and a motivated act”, the trial court had concluded that the appellant's conduct demonstrated a “demonic” character and that death penalty was the only befitting punishment.
The Division Bench, however, disagreed with this approach. The High Court held that the trial court had failed to undertake the legally required exercise of balancing the aggravating circumstances of the crime against the mitigating circumstances relating to the offender.
The Bench observed that the trial court's special reasons for imposing the death penalty were “entirely based on the rituals of a Hindu Marriage”. It further rejected the view that the fact that the victim was murdered at her father's house in the presence of her family members was, by itself, indicative of the appellant's “extreme brutality and demonic nature”.
“We do not agree,” the Bench said. The Court stressed that even in a case involving an exceptionally brutal murder, the sentencing court cannot dispense with an assessment of whether the offender can be reformed or rehabilitated.
In this context, the High Court noted that the appellant had no criminal antecedents, his conduct in the correctional home was satisfactory and the Probation Officer had found that there was a possibility of his reformation. He was also undergoing counselling.
The Bench further noted that the appellant was 37 years old, had a minor son who had lost his mother and an aged mother whom he had been responsible for supporting.
Importantly, the Court observed that the circumstances preceding the crime also indicated that the murder might not have been premeditated. The victim, appellant and other family members had taken tea together that morning, and the assault occurred approximately half an hour later after a quarrel.
The High Court therefore held that the aggravating circumstances, though grave, could not be viewed in isolation.
“Rigorous imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence is an exception,” the Bench reiterated. The Court accordingly declined to confirm the death sentence and commuted it to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Case: State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Dey Bhowmik
Case No: D.R. 3 of 2025