Case at a Glance
A tea-garden resident in Jalpaiguri district was sentenced to death for killing his wife and their 18-month-old daughter with an axe in March 2023 after a quarrel over money for liquor. Hearing the death reference, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court’s Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench upheld the conviction on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and the last-seen theory read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act. But, weighing mitigating factors such as poverty, no criminal antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct, psychiatric treatment and the jail superintendent’s opinion of “the utmost probability of reform”, it held “this was not a case of rarest of rare degree” and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
In the early hours of 27 March 2023, the accused’s wife, aged about 26, and their 18-month-old daughter were found dead in his house at Looksan Tea Estate, Nagrakata Police Station, Jalpaiguri; the accused was found with a self-inflicted abdominal injury. The prosecution case was that there were frequent quarrels over money: he had no fixed job and demanded money from his wife, who worked in the tea garden, for liquor, and a quarrel occurred the evening before. There was no eyewitness.
The Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri convicted him under Sections 302 and 309 IPC on 30 January 2025 and, by order dated 4 February 2025, sentenced him to death under Section 302, subject to confirmation, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 309. The accused did not appeal, and the matter came to the High Court as Death Reference No. 01 of 2025. The defence argued time-date discrepancies, the unreliability of the brother’s evidence and the confession, forensic gaps, and that the trial court had sentenced him without calling for a correctional home report, contrary to Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 05 SC CK 0093.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the conviction for the murders sustainable on circumstantial evidence, and was this a ‘rarest of rare’ case warranting the death penalty?
Conviction stands, but the balance sheet favours life
On guilt, the Bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Shampa Sarkar, found the time discrepancies explained, since the police used the English calendar and the bodies were discovered at about 3:30 a.m. on 27 March. It accepted the extra-judicial confession to the accused’s brother (PW4) and other witnesses as voluntary and corroborated, held the last-seen theory proved, and found the axe recovered from the room to be the weapon, consistent with the autopsy findings. Fingerprints were not examined and the blood sample had disintegrated, but these were investigative lapses that did not defeat the prosecution case. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifted to the accused to explain what happened inside the room, and his claim that two outsiders entered was not proved. The conviction was upheld.
On sentence, the Court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 05 SC CK 0008 (“Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception”), Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 07 SC CK 0002, Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, (2014) 03 SC CK 0071, Anil v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 02 SC CK 0040, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Aman Singh v. State of Bihar, (2026) 04 SC CK 0551 (2026 INSC 424), and faulted the trial judge for not obtaining the jail conduct report. On the jail report obtained by a co-ordinate Bench and the opinions of a psychologist and the jail superintendent, it found mitigating factors: poverty, unemployment, alcohol craving, socio-economic background, no criminal antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct, ongoing psychiatric treatment, “the utmost probability of reform”, and that the act was “not a planned murder, but committed in a rage”. It added that the husband-wife or father-daughter relationship “could not be the sole ground” for treating the case as rarest of rare.
What the Court Actually Held
- The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld on circumstantial evidence, including a corroborated extra-judicial confession, the last-seen theory and recovery of the axe, with Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifting the burden to the accused.
- Investigative lapses such as unexamined fingerprints and a disintegrated blood sample did not defeat the prosecution case.
- Weighing mitigating factors, including no antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct and a probability of reform, the case was “not a case of rarest of rare degree.”
- The death sentence was not confirmed and was commuted to life imprisonment, with set-off of detention already undergone under Section 428 CrPC (Section 468 BNSS).
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows appellate courts insisting on the mitigation material required by Manoj and Aman Singh before a death sentence can stand.
- It confirms that a family relationship between offender and victims does not by itself make a case rarest of rare.
- It illustrates how Section 106 of the Evidence Act operates in murders committed inside a home with no eyewitness.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Trial Courts and Prosecutors
- Call for jail conduct, psychological and background reports before awarding death, as Manoj and Aman Singh require.
- Record the time and date of incidents carefully to avoid calendar-based discrepancies.
- Ensure fingerprint and blood samples are examined and preserved; lapses invite challenge.
For Defence Counsel
- Raise the absence of mitigation reports at the reference stage; the High Court can rely on reports obtained later.
- Place poverty, lack of antecedents, jail conduct and psychiatric treatment on record as mitigating circumstances.
- Address the Section 106 burden directly where the incident occurred inside the accused’s home.
Key Takeaways
- Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence the exception under Bachan Singh.
- Mitigation reports, including jail conduct and psychological evaluation, are essential in capital sentencing.
- A relationship of husband-wife or father-daughter cannot alone make a case rarest of rare.
- Here the conviction stood but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the death sentence commuted?
The Court found mitigating factors — poverty, unemployment, no criminal antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct, psychiatric treatment, a probability of reform and the absence of premeditation — and held it was not a rarest of rare case.
What evidence supported the conviction without an eyewitness?
An extra-judicial confession to the accused’s brother and others, the last-seen theory, recovery of the axe, autopsy findings, and the accused’s failure under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain what happened inside the room.
Must a trial court call for a jail conduct report before awarding death?
The High Court faulted the trial judge for not obtaining it, relying on Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Aman Singh v. State of Bihar, which require such material in capital cases.
Conclusion
The Bench separated the question of guilt from the question of sentence with care: the evidence proved the killings, but the mitigation record, much of it obtained only at the appellate stage, showed a man with no prior record and a real prospect of reform. That, under Bachan Singh, was enough to keep the case out of the narrow band where death is permissible.
Practical takeaway: Before a death sentence is imposed or confirmed, courts must have mitigation material such as jail conduct and psychological reports; where it shows a probability of reform, life imprisonment is the likely outcome.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com