Calcutta HC Delivers Split Verdict In Death Reference Case; One Judge Acquits Accused While The Other Commutes Sentence To 30 Years Imprisonment
|The Calcutta High Court has delivered a split verdict in a death reference case.
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ordered the acquittal of the accused, whereas Justice Soumen Sen called for the commutation of the accused's death sentence to 30 years imprisonment.
The case will now be referred to the Chief Justice for reassignment to another bench for further proceedings.
In this case, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of the complainant’s adopted parents under Section 302 of the IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The complainant reported the deaths at Kalimpong Police Station, stating he learned of their demise from a neighbor and discovered their blood-stained bodies at their home.
The prosecution brought forth 20 witnesses and various documents to substantiate their case against the appellant, who denied the charges, alleging false implication. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented, resulting in the death sentence and the current appeal.
Justice Partha Sarthi Sen's Judgment
He highlighted significant procedural lapses in the case, noting that witnesses were not present during the recovery of items, and the appellant did not provide detailed information about the exact locations of concealment.
It was held that these procedural shortcomings and lack of substantial evidence compromised the credibility of the recovery process, leading to doubts about its validity. It observed inconsistencies and inadequate substantiation of claims related to the victim's jewelry, as well as the lack of verification of the murder weapon and the blood analysis found on it.
Considering these factors and additional findings, It was concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish circumstances that unequivocally proved the appellant's guilt.
Observing that, "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.", he overturned the trial court's judgment and order of conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Justice Soumen Sen's Judgment
He emphasized the importance of assessing the potential for reform and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing the death penalty. He held that its approach must extend beyond the crime itself to consider the possibility of the criminal's reformation.
It was asserted that Courts are required to conduct a thorough analysis, gathering evidence on the convict's behavior in jail, mental state, family connections, and other relevant factors to determine if reformation is feasible.
It was noted that its responsibility was not limited to considering the crime's severity but also involved evaluating the criminal's background and potential for reintegration into society. It was held that the Trial Court had inadequately investigated the accused's potential for reformation and rehabilitation.
Subsequently, it was observed that reports from the Correctional Home indicated the accused had good conduct in jail and no adverse reports. Additionally, the accused had no prior criminal record.
It was further noted that the accused was not given sufficient time between conviction and sentencing to present mitigating circumstances.
Observing that, "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.", he decided to set aside the death sentence and commute it to 30 years of imprisonment.
Cause Title: Krishna Pradhan @ Tanka vs The State of West Bengal
Click here to read/download the Judgment