The Division Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta of the Calcutta High Court in the case of the State of West Bengal Vs Nemai Sasmal & Purnima Sasmal held that a hurried and cryptic sentence hearing without a proper opportunity for the convicts to present their case and lead evidence (if necessary) is anathema to death penology.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of Dejbani used to reside with her father and her stepmother. After the death of her mother, Nemai transferred land in favour of Debjani and her elder sister Kumkum. The appellants tortured Debjani into consenting to the land transfer in favour of her stepmother. She was tortured by the appellants. She was neither fed nor clothed properly. P.W.1 got information that she was lying dead at the residence of the appellants.
The charge sheet was filed and the charges were framed under sections 302/34 I.P.C. against the appellants. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death.
Contentions:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the motive of the crime is not proved as Dejbani was minor and her consent was not necessary to transfer the property. Furthermore, the cause of death was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the post-mortem report indicates that she was strangulated. It was also submitted that minor discrepancies in the depositions of witnesses would not affect the credibility of the case. Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been established beyond doubt.
Court’s Observation:
The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgment of the apex court titled Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab in which it was held that
“209. … Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging murderers has never been too good for them. Facts and Figures, albeit incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the past, courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency — a fact which attests to the caution and compassion that they have always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts, aided by the broad illustrative guidelines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of the legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through the law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
The Bench held that the Court has singularly failed to embark on an enquiry whether there was the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellants and the alternate option of life imprisonment was wholly foreclosed. A hurried and cryptic sentence hearing without a proper opportunity for the convicts to present their case and lead evidence (if necessary) is anathema to death penology. There is divergence in judicial opinion on whether a death sentence may be imposed on the same day after the pronouncement of conviction. But there is no second
opinion that the Court must give a real and substantial opportunity to the convict to present his case and apply its mind to the aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances before imposing the extreme penalty of death. Furthermore, the prosecution has placed nothing on record to show that there is no possibility of rehabilitation or reformation of the appellants and the alternate option of life imprisonment is wholly foreclosed. A report from the correctional home shows their behaviour and conduct are cordial and satisfactory. This reinforces my belief that the appellants have a high possibility of reformation and rehabilitation which rules out the extreme penalty of death.
The Decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court modified the sentence imposed upon the appellants and direct they shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of one year more.
Case Title: State of West Bengal Vs Nemai Sasmal & Purnima Sasmal
Case No: Death Reference No. 3 of 2017
Coram: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Souvik Mitter, Adv, Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Adv.
Advocate for the State: Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pinak Kr. Mitra, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
