Recently, in a case of premeditated violence unfolding in broad daylight, the Calcutta High Court confronted the legal and moral weight of sentencing in a brutal murder committed by a young man against his former partner. At the heart of the matter lay a pressing question: does a gruesome, calculated act of personal vengeance meet the ‘rarest of rare’ standard warranting the ultimate punishment, or does the possibility of reformation tip the scales toward mercy? Read on to explore how the Court balanced the crime’s severity with constitutional principles of justice and reformation.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from the brutal murder of a young woman in front of a residential gate. The appellant, who had a prior relationship with the victim, was charged with her murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for possessing an imitation firearm under Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959. The victim had distanced herself due to the appellant’s substance abuse and harassment, including threats and stalking. She had lodged a general diary and later entered a new relationship, further provoking the appellant. On the day of the incident, he stabbed her 45 times and brandished a toy gun to deter bystanders. A journalist recorded the act, and a businessman witnessed it; both identified the appellant in court. CCTV footage and forensic evidence, including blood-stained items recovered from him, corroborated their accounts. He was apprehended during a police Naka check while fleeing. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to death, leading to a death reference and an appeal before the Calcutta High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt by not examining all key eyewitnesses, thereby violating the fair trial principles laid down in Dharkole (2004). It was argued that the trial court wrongly relied on uncorroborated testimonies of two individuals whose credibility was questionable, one of whom allegedly recorded the incident despite being threatened, and the other claimed to have called the police without any FIR being lodged. The digital evidence, including CCTV and video footage, was admitted without proving the chain of custody or compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, contrary to Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020). The forensic gait analysis used for identification was also challenged as being scientifically unreliable.
The appellant contended that the act was impulsive, driven by emotional distress from a failed relationship, not premeditated. His young age (21), lack of prior criminal record, depression noted in the State’s report, and educational background were cited as mitigating factors. Relying on Sunil Baban Pingale (1999), Macchi Singh (1983), and Bachan Singh (1980), it was argued that the case does not meet the threshold of ‘rarest of rare’ to justify the death penalty.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge of murder was proved beyond a reasonable doubt through the consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses and corroborative CCTV footage marked as exhibits. It was argued that the victim had previously lodged a general diary against the appellant for harassment, indicating a pattern of threatening behavior. The appellant’s possession of a knife and a toy gun, along with forensic evidence such as blood-stained clothes and the recovered murder weapon, conclusively linked him to the crime. The prosecution examined 34 witnesses and tendered substantial documentary and material evidence, including the post-mortem report confirming 45 stab injuries, to firmly establish the appellant’s guilt.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed, “Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case including the ratio of the authorities relating to death penalty as also sentence of life imprisonment without remission, in our view, interest of justice would be subserved by commuting the death penalty to one of life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for another 40 years from the date of arrest of the appellant.”
The Court found that the prosecution had conclusively established the appellant’s guilt in the murder of the victim. The testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses who were eyewitnesses to the incident were deemed credible and consistent. The Court noted, “PW 2 and 3 are witnesses who have seen the incident of murder of the victim. Both of them have corroborated each other with regard to the incident.” Their accounts detailed the appellant repeatedly stabbing the victim on May 2, 2022, in front of the gate of PW 4’s house, and brandishing a toy gun to prevent intervention.
The Bench rejected the defense’s contention, relying on State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dharkole alias Govind Singh (2004), stating, “It is trite law that, Court is not concerned with the quantity of the evidence but the quality thereof,” emphasizing that the robust testimonies of PW 2 and PW 3 withstood cross-examination and sufficiently implicated the appellant. Regarding digital evidence, the Court clarified, “We have not held that, the CCTV footage or any other electronic material which the learned trial Court was pleased to consider were not proved in accordance with the Evidence Act, 1872,” but noted that even without it, the eyewitness accounts were sufficient. The Court concluded, “Prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant murdered the victim, and that, he tried to evade arrest by brandishing a toy gun, conclusively.”Forensic evidence further corroborated the prosecution’s case, with the seizure of a blood-stained knife, toy gun, and the appellant’s apparel linking him to the crime.
Under the crime test, the Court assessed aggravating circumstances, noting that the appellant inflicted 45 stab injuries on the victim, demonstrating premeditation through the procurement of a knife and a toy gun to deter interference. It observed, “Materials on record established that, appellant had planned the murder. The victim had suffered 45 stab injuries. The appellant did not let go of the victim despite the victim trying to defend herself and suffering defence wounds, falling to the ground and suffering further wounds.”
However, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances did not fully satisfy the crime test, as there was no evidence of a prior criminal record or additional serious offenses, stating, “Briefly stated, the aggravating circumstances as against the appellant cannot be classified as 100%.” The Bench observed, “so far as the criminal test or the mitigating circumstances are concerned, we are not in a position to arrive at a finding that it is 0% as against the appellant. Age of the appellant is in favour of the appellant. The nature of crime cannot be classified as rarest of rare cases.”
The Court also reviewed a state report on the appellant’s mental health, which indicated a history of depression but no conclusive evidence precluding rehabilitation. Citing Manoj and others vs. State of M.P. (2023), the Court emphasized, “Court must arrive at a finding that the option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed owing to an impossibility of reformation to award death penalty.” The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the murder was a spontaneous act of passion due to a failed relationship, finding instead that “the assault on the victim was not on the spur of the moment. Appellant had purchased a toy gun to stave off any intervenors when he would be murdering the victim. Appellant had also got himself the knife.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the preceding discussion, the Calcutta High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959. However, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for 40 years from the date of arrest, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000, in default, the appellant shall undergo an additional five years of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence under the Arms Act was upheld, with both sentences to run concurrently, and the period of detention during investigation, inquiry, and trial to be set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal Vs. Susanta Chowdhury
Case No.: DR 7 of 2023
Coram: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Advocate for Appellant: Senior Adv. Kallol Mondal, Advocates Krishan Ray and Anamitra Banerjee
Advocate for Respondent: PP Debashish Roy, Advocates Amita Gaur and Shaila Afrin
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
