"Hurried & Cryptic Sentence Hearing Is Anathema To Death Penology": Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of 2 To LI

"A hurried and cryptic sentence hearing without a proper opportunity to the convicts to present their case and lead evidence (if necessary) is an anathema to death penology," the Calcutta High Court observed recently as it commuted the death sentence of a man and his wife to Life Imprisonment.

The Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta also stressed that the court has to give a real and substantial opportunity to the convict to present his case and apply its mind to the aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances before imposing the extreme penalty of death.

In this case, the accused/husband-wife duo have been found guilty of committing the murder of a 14-year-old girl, who was the real daughter of convict no. 1 (Nemai Sasmal). Convict no. 2 (Purnima Sasmal) was the stepmother of the deceased.

Both of them were convicted and sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Arambagh, Hooghly in February 2017 for the commission of offence punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the order and judgment, they moved to the High Court.

The facts in brief

The case of the prosecution against the appellants/convicts was to the effect that the deceased (Debjani Sasmal), a 14-year-old girl, used to reside with her father, Nemai Sasmal (first appellant), and her step-mother, Purnima Sasmal (second appellant).

After the death of her real mother Reba, a piece of land was transferred in the favour of Debjani and her sister Kumkum. Kumkum resided with her maternal uncles while Debjani stayed with her father and stepmother.

The appellants wanted the deceased to transfer the land in favor of her stepmother/appellant no. 2, however, she did not consent. As a result, she was tortured by the appellants, and ultimately, she was strangulated by them, leading to her death.

High Court's observations

Having perused the evidence put forth and the circumstances of the case, the Court noted that the deceased used to reside with the appellants in the house and she was tortured by the appellants as she did not consent to the transfer of the landed property in question, which gave motive to the appellants to do away with the minor girl.

The Court further noted that the deceased was strangulated by an orna in the house on the night between 29 -30 May 2011 when no one apart from the appellants and their six-year-old son were present at that time and this fact stood proved by the post mortem report and other attending circumstances.

The Court also noted that the appellants had come out with a false explanation regarding the cause of death, i.e. suicide during the trial, which, in the Court's opinion, was an additional link to the chain of incriminating circumstances.

Consequently, the Court held that these circumstances have been proved beyond doubt and irresistibly point to the guilt of the appellants. Hence, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellants.

Now, regarding the death sentence awarded to the appellants, the Court noted that apart from observing that the convict had a minor child, the trial Court had not taken into account other mitigating factors or the probability of the convict being reformed and rehabilitated.

"The Court has singularly failed to embark into an inquiry whether there was a possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellants and the alternate option of life imprisonment was wholly foreclosed. A hurried and cryptic sentence hearing without a proper opportunity to the convicts to present their case and lead evidence (if necessary) is anathema to death penology," the Court remarked.

Further, the Court also observed that in the present case, the prosecution had placed nothing on record to show that there is no possibility of rehabilitation or reformation of the appellants and the alternate option of life imprisonment is wholly foreclosed. The Court also factored in the report from the correctional home showing their behavior and conduct to be cordial and satisfactory.

Lastly, the Court noted that even in cases where a minor has been murdered by a parent or person in trust, the Apex Court, after taking a holistic view of all circumstances, refrained from imposing the extreme penalty.

Hence, concluding that the appellants have a high possibility of reformation and rehabilitation which rules out the extreme penalty of death, the Court modified the sentence imposed upon the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Case title - STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. NEMAI SASMAL & PURNIMA SASMAL along with a connected matter

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 370

Click Here To Read/Download Order