The Calcutta High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife, rejecting a trial court’s conclusion that he was a “demon” whose actions justified the ultimate punishment.
While affirming the man’s conviction, a Bench of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Smita Das De commuted his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life.
The High Court found that the trial court had placed undue emphasis on the marriage vows exchanged between the couple and had failed to properly examine factors relevant to the possibility of the convict’s reform.
The trial court had concluded that the man deserved to be executed because he had forgotten the “love, affection, contribution and sacrifice” of his wife and violated the sanctity of their marital vows.
The High Court, however, disagreed with that reasoning.
It observed that the trial judge had relied heavily on the Vedic mantras associated with a Hindu marriage before concluding that the crime fell within the category warranting the death penalty.
According to the High Court, describing the convict as someone beyond transformation was not sufficient to justify capital punishment.
The Court stressed that even a person convicted of a serious offence could undergo change and rehabilitation.
The case stemmed from a violent incident in Jalpaiguri in June 2023. Sujit Dey Bhowmik was accused of attacking his wife with an axe during an argument at her parents’ home. Their seven-year-old son witnessed the incident.
When the woman’s mother and grandmother attempted to intervene, they too were attacked.
The woman later died from her injuries. Her mother suffered a serious chest injury, while her grandmother sustained injuries to her back, hands and eye, eventually losing vision in one eye.
In April 2025, the trial court convicted Bhowmik of murder and attempted murder. It imposed the death penalty for the murder charge, describing the circumstances of the crime as exceptionally brutal.
The trial judge particularly noted that the killing took place at the woman’s parental home and in the presence of her family members. The alleged breach of marital vows was also treated as a significant factor in concluding that the case was among the “rarest of rare” cases.
The High Court found serious shortcomings in this approach.
It noted that the trial court had neither sought a report regarding Bhowmik’s conduct while in custody nor obtained a psychiatric assessment before deciding that he was incapable of reform.
A probation officer’s report later obtained during the High Court proceedings painted a different picture. The report found that Bhowmik had no previous criminal record, had maintained good conduct in custody and was receiving counselling.
The Court also took note of his family circumstances, including his young son and elderly mother.
These factors, the Bench said, had not been adequately considered while imposing the death sentence.
Another significant aspect was the possibility that the killing was not planned in advance. The Court noted that the couple and other family members had shared tea and breakfast shortly before the incident. A quarrel followed soon afterwards, after which the violence took place.
Relying on principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the award of capital punishment, the High Court said a proper assessment of an accused person’s mental condition and prospects of rehabilitation was essential before imposing the death penalty.
The Bench ultimately concluded that the trial court’s special reasons for awarding capital punishment were largely rooted in the rituals and vows associated with a Hindu marriage rather than a complete assessment of the circumstances required for such a sentence.
The conviction was therefore upheld, but the death penalty was replaced with rigorous imprisonment for life.
