Brutality Of Crime Alone Can't Justify Death Penalty: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that brutality of a crime alone cannot justify confirmation of a death sentence and that capital sentencing must also consider whether the accused is capable of reformation before holding that life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed,

"...the sentencing must be both crime-centric and criminal-centric rather than merely a reaction to the brutality of the act … The brutality of the crime, by itself, cannot conclude the sentencing exercise."

The observations came while deciding Death reference along with a connected Criminal Appeal arising from the conviction of one Rintu Sarmah for the murder of a woman.

According to the prosecution, after the deceased completed her examination at Moridhol College in August, 2021, the accused followed her and her companions on a scooty, attacked the deceased's companion and her father with a Khamti Dao (a traditional, heavy-bladed single-edged sword) and thereafter repeatedly assaulted the deceased on her head, causing injuries to which she later succumbed.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 341 IPC and awarded him the death sentence after treating the case as falling within the "rarest of the rare" category.

Before the High Court, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence. It was argued that the prosecution evidence suffered from omissions and inconsistencies and that, in any event, the trial court had imposed the death penalty by placing predominant emphasis on the brutality of the offence without undertaking the necessary individualised sentencing exercise regarding the offender, including his possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.

The High Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses stood corroborated by independent witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon and surrounding circumstances, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

However, while considering the sentence, the Court found the sentencing exercise undertaken by the trial court to be deficient. It observed that the trial court had inferred absence of remorse and absence of scope for reformation merely because the appellant denied the occurrence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

The Court held, "In our opinion, such a denial is a part of the defence of the accused and therefore, by itself, cannot furnish a safe basis to conclude that he is incapable of reformation. There are no other sufficient materials on record to conclude that there is no possibility of reformation or rehabilitation. The gravity of the offence cannot fill these evidentiary gaps."

The Court further observed, "Public outrage or the shocking nature of an offence may indeed raise serious societal concern. Still, the sentencing decision must rest on the judicially recognised principle governing capital punishment, as recorded hereinabove."

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant was incapable of reformation or that life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate, the Court held, "To conclude, while we find the aggravating circumstance to be substantial, we are unable to hold that the alternative of life imprisonment stands unquestionably foreclosed. In our opinion, the present case does not meet the high threshold required to confirm a death sentence."

The Court accordingly commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life while affirming the conviction and the remaining sentences.

Case No.: Death Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2025

Case Title: The State of Assam v. Rintu Sarmah

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 118

Click Here To Read Judgement