Calcutta High Court Division Bench Delivers Split Verdict In Death Reference Case, One Judge Orders Acquittal While Other Commutes Sentence

The Calcutta High Court has delivered a split verdict in a death reference case. A division bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Partha Sarathi Sen arrived at a split verdict whereby Justice Soumen Sen ordered for the accused's death sentence to be commuted to 30 years imprisonment, while Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ordered the acquittal of the accused.The matter will now be placed before Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam for necessary assignment before another bench. While ordering for the acquittal of the accused, Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held:It appears to this Court that the prosecution before the trial court has miserably failed to establish the circumstances from which an absolute inference of guilt of the present appellant can be drawn. I find so many lacuna as discussed in the chain of circumstances leading to the alleged guilt of the accused. Since the conclusion of a criminal trial is based on the theory of conclusive proof and not on preponderance of probability, I hold that the learned trial court is not justified in coming to a finding that the charge under Section 302 IPC has been proved as against the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and death reference is answered in negative.While ordering for the death sentence of the accused to be commuted to thirty years imprisonment, Justice Soumen Sen held:The accused has no criminal antecedent and it cannot be said that he is beyond reformation and rehabilitation. It cannot be said that he would be menace or threat to the society. On consideration of the report of the superintendent of the correctional home, the psychologist, the nature of the crime and keeping in mind that undue leniency in such a brutal case would be likely to adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system and the rights of the victim as well. I set aside the death sentence and commute it to imprisonment for 30 years. BackgroundThe case involved an order of conviction which was passed against the appellant who was found guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of the 'dharmmata' and 'dharampita' of the complainant (their adopted son), and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs 1 lakh.The complainant had filed a case at the Kalimpong Police Station, reporting the deaths of his 'dharampita' and 'dharmamata' in their home. It was stated that he was told about their deaths by a neighbour and found their blood-stained bodies at their home.The prosecution presented 20 witnesses and multiple documents to support their case against the appellant, while the defence denied the allegations while claiming false implication. The trial concluded that the appellant was guilty based on the evidence on record, leading to the death sentence and the present appeal.Justice Partha Sarathi Sen stated that there had been critical procedural lapses, with witnesses not being present during the recovery of items and the appellant's failure to sufficiently detail the exact concealment spots. It was held that the lack of procedural adherence and substantive evidence undermined the credibility of the recovery process, casting doubt on its validity. The Court noted discrepancies and insufficient substantiation of claims regarding the victim's jewellery as well as non-verification of the murder weapon and the analysis of the blood found on it.Keeping in view the above factors, along with certain other findings, the court concluded that the prosecution before the Trial Court had miserably failed to establish the circumstances from which an absolute inference of guilt of the appellant could be drawn.Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned judgement and order of conviction and acquitted the appellant.Justice Soumen Sen on the other hand emphasized the importance of evaluating the probability of reforming and rehabilitating the accused before imposing the death penalty. It was held that the court's approach must look beyond the crime itself to consider the potential for the criminal's reformation. Justice Sen held that Courts are mandated to conduct a rigorous analysis, gathering evidence about the convict's behavior in jail, mental state, family connections, and other relevant factors to determine if reformation is possible.The Court noted that its duty went beyond merely considering the crime's severity, but also to evaluate the criminal's background and potential for reintegration into society. It was held that the Trial Court had failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the accused's potential for reformation and rehabilitation. Court stated that the reports from the Correctional Home indicated that the accused had good conduct in jail and no adverse reports. Additionally, he did not have any prior criminal record.The Court noted that the accused was not given sufficient time between conviction and sentencing to present mitigating circumstances either.Accordingly, it decided to set aside the death...

Calcutta High Court Division Bench Delivers Split Verdict In Death Reference Case, One Judge Orders Acquittal While Other Commutes Sentence

Srinjoy Das

Tags