Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of ‘Lover’ Accused Of Inflicting 45 Wounds On Woman
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who was accused of inflicting forty-five wounds on a woman.
The Court was dealing with a Death Reference and an Appeal relating to the Judgment of conviction and an Order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, which convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to death.
A Division Bench comprising 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 appellant shall also pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years more for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The Bench remarked that the aggravating circumstances as against the accused cannot be classified as 100%.
Senior Advocate Kallol Mondal represented the Appellant while Public Prosecutor (PP) Debashish Roy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
Charges against the Appellant-accused were framed under Section 302 of the IPC and under Section 28 of the Arms Act. He was charged with the murder of the victim in May 2022 on the road in front of the gate of the house and being found to be in possession of an imitation firearm and trying to make an attempt to use such firearm with an intention to resist or prevent lawful arrest and detention after commission of the murder. It was alleged that a love relationship was developed between the victim and the Appellant.
However, the victim allegedly developed a good relation with another person. The Appellant had come to know about the same. 45 injuries on the body of the victim were found during the post-mortem. It was alleged that 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 and, persons present at the place of occurrence trying to intervene to save the victim from the Appellant. The Trial Court had convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death. Hence, he approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The date of birth of the appellant is November 2, 2001 as appearing from the report submitted in Court pursuant to the order dated May 1, 2025. As on the date of commission of the crime, the age of the appellant was about 21 years. Today, he would be about 24 years.”
The Court said that the accused had prepared himself with the murder weapon as also toy gun to stave off any interference while he was out and about committing the crime.
“Similarly, 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. … He has inflicted 45 wounds on the victim. He did not let go the victim despite the victim falling to the ground and persons trying to intervene to save the victim. He has demonstrated sufficient quantum of depravity in the commission of the crime so as to warrant invocation of the ratio of the two authorities noted in this paragraph. Report of the State raises questions as to the mental health of the appellant”, it added.
So far as the sentence awarded with regard to the Arms Act is concerned, by the Trial Court, the Court upheld the same. It ordered that the period of detention, enquiry, and the trial hall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed on him in terms of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
“Both the sentences will run concurrently. … A copy of the judgement and order along with the trial court records be remitted to the jurisdictional court forthwith”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Death Reference and Appeal and commuted the death sentence.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Susanta Chowdhury (Case Number: DR 7 of 2023)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Kallol Mondal, Advocates Krishan Ray, and Anamitra Banerjee.
Respondent: PP Debashish Roy, Advocates Amita Gaur, and Shaila Afrin.
