Can a man be sentenced to death after being called a “demon” without properly examining whether he can reform? The Calcutta High Court upheld the murder conviction but found that key mitigating factors were ignored before imposing the death penalty.

JALPAIGURI: The Calcutta High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife, holding that the Trial Court failed to properly examine his possibility of reformation and rehabilitation before sending him to the gallows.

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De upheld the conviction of Sujit Dey Bhowmik under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, but commuted his death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court found that the prosecution had proved the murder and attack on the wife’s family members beyond reasonable doubt.

The case arose from an incident dated June 20, 2023. According to the prosecution, Sujit attacked his wife, Mitali Dey Bhowmik, with an axe at her parental home following a quarrel. Their seven-year-old son was present. When the woman’s mother and grandmother tried to intervene, they were also attacked.

The Trial Court convicted Sujit for murder and attempt to murder. It sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment with a fine of ₹1 lakh under Section 307 IPC. However, the court acquitted him of the charges under Sections 498A and 326 IPC. The court also acquitted two other accused, Dilip Dey Bhowmik and Sadhan Dey Bhowmik, of the Section 498A charge.

While imposing the extreme punishment, the Trial Court placed significant reliance on the Vedic Mantras and marital vows exchanged during a Hindu marriage. It reasoned that Sujit had forgotten the “love, affection, contribution and sacrifice” of his wife and treated the crime as falling within the “rarest of ‘rare’” category. It also described him as a “demon” whose mind could not be changed even through training and spiritual lectures in prison.

The High Court disagreed with this approach to sentencing.

“The learned Judge stressed on the Vedic Mantras chanted by the spouses at the time of marriage and arrived at the conclusion that, as the appellant did not hesitate to murder his wife and chose to forget the love, affection, contribution and sacrifice of his spouse, this was a rarest of ‘rare’ case to award death penalty...Thus, according to the trial court, the appellant was a ‘demon ’, and his mind could not be changed even if he was given training and spiritual lectures in the correctional home. We do not agree to the death penalty. Every person guilty of commission of a grave offence can undergo transformation,” the Court said.

The Bench found a significant procedural irregularity in the sentencing exercise. The Trial Court had not called for Sujit’s prison conduct report or examined his mental condition and possibility of rehabilitation before imposing the death sentence.

The report later obtained from the Probation Officer showed that Sujit’s conduct in custody was satisfactory, he was undergoing counselling and there was a possibility of reform. He had no previous criminal antecedents, had a minor son and was also responsible for an elderly mother. The Trial Court also did not consider his socio-economic background.

The High Court further noted that the incident might not have been pre-determined or premeditated. Sujit, his wife and other family members had taken morning tea together, and the incident happened about half an hour after breakfast following a quarrel. These circumstances were relevant while deciding whether a convicted man should receive the irreversible punishment of death.

The Bench stressed that

“Rigorous imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence is an exception.”

It found that the Trial Court had failed to extract and properly balance the mitigating circumstances and that its special reasons for awarding death were “entirely based on the rituals of a Hindu Marriage.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions on capital punishment, including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Aman Singh v. State of Bihar, the High Court reiterated that courts must consider both the crime and the circumstances of the offender before imposing the extreme penalty.

The Court noted that in death penalty cases, information regarding reformation and rehabilitation, prison conduct and psychiatric or psychological evaluation must be considered, while the accused must also receive a meaningful opportunity to respond to such material.

The High Court did not dilute the seriousness of the offence. It specifically recorded that killing his wife in front of their seven-year-old son and attacking her family members were serious aggravating circumstances. However, those circumstances had to be balanced against the absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory prison conduct, socio-economic background and possibility of reform.

Accordingly, while the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC remained intact, the High Court refused to confirm the death sentence and commuted it to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court directed that the period already spent in custody be set off against the substantive sentence under Section 428 CrPC.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. A man was branded a “demon” and sentenced to death without properly examining his chance of reform.
2. The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction, but rejected death based on moral outrage and marital rhetoric.
3. The Trial Court relied heavily on Hindu marriage vows and what the husband allegedly failed to honour.
4. No criminal past, good jail conduct, counselling and possibility of reform were ignored.
5. The Court reiterated: life imprisonment is the rule, death is the exception. Even a guilty man cannot be sent to the gallows through emotional sentencing.