The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who had been convicted for the beheading of a lady, motivated by a belief that she was a witch. The division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that life imprisonment would be a sufficient punishment under the facts and circumstances of the case, declining to confirm the death sentence imposed by the trial court. The court noted that the appellant’s conduct in the correctional home was assessed as satisfactory, his age was considered, and importantly, he had suffered a fall from the roof of a bus, which had resulted in a mental illness that often caused violent episodes, necessitating his detainment by his family. The bench expressed the view that in these facts, life imprisonment would serve as adequate punishment instead of the death penalty.
The background of the case reveals that the appellant had been convicted by the trial court for the offence of murder wherein he had forcibly taken the victim from her house to a nearby temple and decapitated her using a sharp weapon. The appellant had been motivated by the belief that the victim was a witch. According to the testimony, immediately after carrying out the act, he had walked home, carrying the severed head in one hand and the weapon in the other, engaging in what was described as celebratory behavior. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts including those of the victim’s relatives, specifically P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who claimed to have witnessed the incident, though they were related to the victim. The defence challenged their credibility, pointing to variations and contradictions in their statements and highlighting the absence of independent witnesses despite the incident having occurred in an open space. They also criticized the trial court for not expressly branding the case as one that fell within the ‘rarest of rare’ category and for neglecting to consider whether the appellant was beyond reformation before awarding the death penalty.
The High Court recounted that the victim was dragged to the Kali temple and made to bow before the idol, and then struck on the back of her neck with a sharp cutting weapon, resulting in her death. The evidence presented by the eyewitnesses was supported by medical findings, as the autopsy report confirmed decapitation as the cause of death, and the injuries were consistent with the weapon and method described. The bench held that the combined evidence was sufficiently credible, despite defence arguments regarding inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses, and determined that the trial court should have weighed mitigating factors before arriving at the death sentence.
During the appeal, the court ordered a psychological, medical and socio‑economic evaluation of the appellant. Reports indicated that he was twenty‑eight years old, unmarried, the only son in his family, had studied only until class V, and had worked as an agricultural labourer and helper to a mason. He had a history of mental illness that developed after a fall from the roof of a bus, and the condition caused episodes of violence for which he had to be restrained by his family and was under medical treatment. His socio‑economic status was poor and educationally disadvantaged, with little awareness of consequences, and the family had no criminal antecedents. Moreover, his conduct in custody was described as normal and stable.
In view of these findings, the High Court held that the appellant was not beyond reformation and that the case did not meet the threshold of a ‘rarest of rare’ case warranting the death penalty. The court observed that the trial court had not given parties an opportunity to present aggravating and mitigating circumstances and had failed to determine whether the crime was of such exceptional depravity as to foreclose the option of life imprisonment. The bench referred to established jurisprudence emphasizing the importance of evaluating both aggravating and mitigating factors and underscored that death penalty should be reserved for most exceptional instances. The court concluded by commuting the appellant’s death sentence to life imprisonment, clarifying that the sentence would reflect imprisonment for life and that credit would be given for the period already spent in custody.
The court’s decision marks a shift from the trial court’s imposition of capital punishment, instead recognizing factors such as the appellant’s mental health condition, age, poor socioeconomic background, absence of prior criminal record, conduct during incarceration, and potential for reform. The conviction itself remains affirmed, but the quantum of punishment has been significantly reduced. The High Court emphasized that where the possibility of reformation remains, and mitigating circumstances exist, life imprisonment may be an equally just alternative to the death penalty, even in cases involving extremely violent acts motivated by superstition.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.