The Calcutta High Court has reversed a death sentence awarded to a man for a brutal murder, while observing that it was a serious miscarriage of justice to award a death sentence without enquiring about the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.

In that vein, the Justice Soumen Sen observed that, "the onus is on the state to lead evidence to the effect that the offender is beyond reformation is one of the important factors to be taken into consideration. There should be an attempt to produce materials relating to mitigating circumstances and before the trial court proceeds to pronounce death sentence the court is required to call for the reports from the Probation Officer, Psychological Evaluation Reports and Jail Reports regarding conduct".

In his concurring judgment, Justice Partha Sarathi Sen further observed that, "in view of the failure of the learned trial court in making an enquiry with regard to the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the present appellant and also coming to a conclusion whether the accused/appellant would be heinous to the society I am of the considered view that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred in awarding death sentence to the present appellant".

An FIR was registered against Padam Subba after villagers saw him leaving the home of Maya Subba, who was found in a pool of blood. He worked as a domestic help in their home. When questioned, Subba did not respond. Villagers also found Maya's daughter with fatal bleeding injuries. However, Padam Subba could not be located.

The trial judge sentenced Subba to death, finding no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment. The District Legal Services Committee argued that the prosecution's case was inconsistent and contradictory, noting variations between the FIR and eyewitness testimonies. They pointed out that if there had been a large commotion, neighbours living closer would have responded first, but those further away arrived first instead.

The defense argued that the daughter's murder was not conclusively proven, and there were inconsistencies regarding the weapon allegedly used. They also contended that the trial judge unjustly characterized the murders as pre-planned and cold-blooded, neglecting the potential for Subba's reformation and awarding a disproportionately harsh death sentence.

The State, however, supported the death penalty, citing the brutality of the crime against a defenseless woman and her young daughter, categorizing it as one of the rarest of rare cases.

It was said that, "it appears to me that while passing the order of sentence learned trial judge has made no venture to make such enquiry as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only with regard to the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict but also with regard to the presence of any criminal antecedents, socio- economic background of the convict as well as the conduct of the convict while he was in judicial custody. It further appears to me that the learned trial judge was practically persuaded with the gruesome nature of the offence and the conduct of the appellant in course of his examination under Section 313 CrPC since the convict in such examination made no venture to explain the incriminating circumstances which have been found in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and while doing so learned trial judge has miserably failed to consider the parameters as have been made mandatorily to be followed by the said court."

The Court observed that the accused has no criminal antecedent and it cannot be said that he is beyond reformation and rehabilitation. It could not be said that he would be a menace or threat to society. It was also noted that sufficient time was not given to the accused between the date of pronouncement of the judgment and sentencing to ponder over the issue.

On consideration of the report of the superintendent of the correctional home, the psychologist, the nature of the crime, the residual doubt with regard to the death of Pragya by the accused and the probability and possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, the Court commuted the death sentence to a fixed term of 21 years from the date of incarceration without remission.

Cause Title: Padam Subba vs State of West Bengal

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Calcutta High CourtJustice Soumen SenJustice Partha Sarathi SenDeath Penalty

Ananya Soni