[POCSO] Calcutta High Court commutes death sentence in rape and murder case to life imprisonment without remission for 60 years

The victim, a minor girl, was abducted, gang-raped, and brutally murdered by the appellants. Her body was later recovered, bearing signs of extreme violence and attempts to destroy evidence. ...

Published on July 28, 2025By Arunima.

Calcutta High Court: A death reference and an appeal were filed challenging the conviction judgment dated 27-06-2023 and the sentencing order dated 28-06-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a POCSO case wherein the Trial Court had convicted the appellants under Sections 376-DB, 302 read with 34, 201 read with 34, 363, and 365 of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, awarding them the death penalty. A division bench of Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi, JJ., commutes the death penalty awarded by the Trial Judge to one of life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for a period of 60 years from the date of commission of the offence. 

Factual Background 

The facts of the case are that the crime took place on 07-11-2021, in a rural village within the jurisdiction of Jhargram district, West Bengal. The five-year-old victim went missing from her home around 10 a.m. that day. Her father filed a written complaint registered as FIR alleging that appellant 1 had abducted the child and hidden her somewhere. The investigation led to the recovery of the child’s dead body from a canal situated within a paddy field. Appellant no. 1 was arrested, and, on his disclosure, the body was located. Following this, articles allegedly used or connected to the crime, including chocolate wrappers, a biri stub, bamboo stick, torn clothes, and ultimately a locket bearing the child’s photo, were recovered from the houses and locations associated with the appellants. The chargesheet filed post-investigation named both appellants and his co-accused. The charges framed under Sections 302, 376DB, 201, 363, 365, 34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were denied by the appellants who claimed false implication. The prosecution examined 30 witnesses and produced extensive documentary evidence. Based on the same, the Trial Court convicted both and imposed the death penalty. 

Submissions 

The appellants assailed the conviction and sentence on several grounds. It was argued by the counsel that the case was built on circumstantial evidence and riddled with inconsistencies. The primary attack was on the credibility of the evidence and that there was inconsistency regarding the place of recovery of the dead body, while the inquest report mentioned a canal, several witnesses stated it was a paddy field. Moreover, the recovery of key items such as chocolates, a biri stub, and clothing five days after the body was found raised doubts as to their authenticity and suggested fabrication. Further, it was alleged that seizure witnesses were illiterate and had blindly signed documents without understanding their contents, thus invalidating the seizures under Section 100 CrPC. The failure to send seized items for forensic analysis, the non-examination of the Magistrates who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements, and contradictions between the statements and trial depositions were also cited to question the integrity of the prosecution case. It was argued that the medical evidence was inconclusive, especially regarding the age and cause of injuries. The defence strongly contended that the ‘last seen’ theory was insufficient in the absence of an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The imposition of the death penalty, they contended, was disproportionate, especially given the socio-economic and mental health conditions of the appellants, and did not meet the ‘rarest of rare’ standard. 

Analysis and Observation 

The Court noted that the post-mortem clearly established aggravated penetrative sexual assault and homicidal death by strangulation. The injuries in the private parts were consistent with the use of a bamboo stick and the cause of death was corroborated by medical testimony which stood unshaken in cross-examination. In terms of circumstantial evidence, the Court found the ‘last seen together’ theory compelling. PW 1, 5, 7, and 8 consistently placed appellant 1 with the victim shortly before her disappearance. Neither of the appellants explained their presence with the child or the recovery of incriminating articles, including the chocolate wrapper, biri stub, and clothing, all seized on their showing. The recovery of the locket from the house of appellant 2 further connected him directly. The defence failed to establish any contradiction or material discrepancy that could impair the prosecution’s case. The Court held that the circumstantial chain was complete and excluded every hypothesis of innocence. 

The Court addressed the discrepancy regarding the place of recovery of the body by harmonizing the statements with the sketch map, which showed that the canal was located within the paddy field area. Thus, the difference in terminology was not material. The credibility of seizure witnesses, despite illiteracy, was sustained on corroboration by other witnesses. On the issue of sentence, the Court examined the report submitted by the State wherein it was noted that both appellants came from impoverished, socially backward families. The appellant 1 had a severe speech issue and was a slow learner. Appellant 2 had dropped out after primary school and was under psychiatric treatment. Both had no criminal antecedents and had shown good conduct in custody. The Court found that the possibility of reformation had not been ruled out by the State and that the rigid application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine was inapplicable. 

Decision 

While upholding the conviction for all charges, including Sections 302, 376DB IPC and Section 6 POCSO, the Court commuted the sentence from death to life imprisonment for both appellants. However, given the exceptional brutality of the offence, the Court held that mere life imprisonment simplicitor would not suffice. The sentence was modified to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for a period of 60 years from the date of commission of the offence, ensuring that justice was done while adhering to constitutional and reformative principles. The Court directed that all records be sent to the appropriate correctional authority and ordered necessary modification in execution of warrants. The period already undergone by the appellants was to be set off under Section 428 CrPC. [Fagun Mandi v. The State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6068, decided on 23-07-2025]..

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants: Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishan Ray, Adv. Mr. Souvik Das, Adv. Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Akbar Laskar, Adv. 

For the State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Mr. Saryati Datta...

Source

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/28/calcutta-hc-commutes-pocso-death-sentence-life-imprisonment-60-years-legal-news/

'When I Got Home, We Just Cried': A Muslim Man's Journey From the Phansi Yard to Acquittal

Sukanya Shantha
27/Jul/2025

42-year-old Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, who was a death row convict for nearly a decade before being acquitted by the Bombay high court earlier this month, reflects on time in prison.

A tiny 80-square-feet room, fitted inside a compact V-shaped enclosure known as the phansi yard (gallows yard) of Nagpur Central Prison, served as “home” for 42-year-old Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui for nearly a decade. In 2015, soon after a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court sentenced 12 individuals – five men, including Siddiqui, to death, and the remaining seven to life imprisonment – in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts case, he was transferred to Nagpur jail. All 12 men were acquitted by the Bombay high court on July 21.Siddiqui describes his decade-long solitary confinement as a place that made him feel “safe.” “In the existing political atmosphere, especially as Muslim men convicted on terror charges, this isolation was the only way we could have stayed safe in jail,” he feels.

An incarceration spanning two decades

Reflecting on his two decades of incarceration – nine years as an undertrial prisoner in Mumbai and then as a death row convict in Nagpur – Siddiqui says that while the trial took nearly a decade, the transition from undertrial to death row prisoner was “quite sudden.” “One minute, we were jostling for space in the overcrowded prison barracks in Mumbai (until the lower court’s verdict), and suddenly, we were thrown into solitary confinement. It was a very small room but it was still ours. It had an attached bathroom, a ceiling fan and a tubelight,” he says, describing the prison room.

Solitary confinement in India is unconstitutional. Even for death row convicts, it is permissible only after their mercy petition is rejected by the President of India. In the serial train blasts case, the death penalty had not yet been confirmed by the High Court but they were still subjected to solitary confinement. “But none of this really matters. It’s a common practice. The moment a person is given a death sentence, the prison authorities transfer them into the phansi yard,” Siddiqui says, as he recalls the names of many death row convicts housed in the 30 tiny solitary cells near his.

“Many lacked proper legal representation and were simply abandoned here after the trial court imposed a death sentence. They would arrive here horrified, thinking this was where they would be hanged the very moment they reached there.” It became almost a duty of other death row convicts like Siddiqui to explain legal procedures, offer advice, and calm newcomers in the phansi yard. Siddiqui says he saw many come and go over those ten years. “Almost all were eventually acquitted in their appeals before higher courts,” he points out. Siddiqui’s observation is in sync with different studies on the Indian judicial system and capital punishment. The Death Penalty reports that the NLU- Delhi’s Project 39A (now renamed as The Square Circle Clinic after it shifted its base to NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad), a criminal justice research and legal aid programme released every year has long established the pattern of death penalties getting either commuted to life or lesser punishment or in many cases, simply ending up in acquittals.

Siddiqui recalls his interactions with five men from the Shinde family, who were sentenced to death by a trial court in a rape and murder case, only to be later acquitted by the Supreme Court. The Shindes, from a Nomadic Tribal community, endured 16 years of incarceration, 13 as death row convicts. “They would keep asking me what I thought of their case, and I would keep reassuring them they’d be out soon. That simple fact made them so happy.” The Shindes were acquitted in 2019 following a strongly worded Supreme Court judgment. Among them, Ankush Maruti Shinde, was only 17, a minor, at the time of his arrest.

 

Experienced sustained physical torture

Siddiqui says the hope that their innocence would eventually be proven kept them going. “We too survived prison life on that one hope. After all, how long could justice evade us?” he asks. Siddiqui experienced both extremes of prison life: sustained physical torture in Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail (complaints about which led to the transfer of the then-jail superintendent, Swati Sathe) and a relatively calmer existence with better food and living conditions in Nagpur. “I’m not romanticising prison life, but Nagpur’s prison was certainly a lot better. Which also means prisons can be made liveable if one wished,” he says. But his co-defendant Kamal Ansari’s death during the second wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2021 shook him. “Everyone around us was falling sick. Kamal fell sick and was moved to the hospital ward. He never returned.” Siddiqui says most of the men implicated in the case were unknown to him at the time of arrest. “But as circumstances brought us together, we eventually became each others’ support system,” he adds. The police and jail officials, he claims, tried hard to turn them against each other. “And the frustration does eventually get to you. So, each time we reached a point of anger or frustration against each other, we would simply stop talking. That helped us cool off, and rework on our relationship,” he shares.

In Nagpur, Siddiqui had no trouble accessing writing materials. So he wrote extensively. His book, Horror Saga, which details his prison life and the botched up trial, was published last year. He has a manuscript ready for his next book. He has also translated several others while incarcerated. How did he access books and research materials in jail? “I deviced a unique method,” he says, with a sense of pride. Siddiqui filed nearly 6,000 Right to Information (RTI) applications over two decades, primarily to gather evidence against the investigating agency, which helped debunk the police’s case, and also to access books published by the government press.

Earned over 20 degrees while in prison

A college dropout at the time of his arrest, Siddiqui has since earned over 20 degrees, including several Master’s, Bachelor’s, and Diplomas. In 2001, while in his third year of a Chemical Engineering program, he was arrested for a few days for alleged involvement with the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), an organisation banned that year, leading to the overnight criminalisation of many men from the Muslim community. Since then, Siddiqui says he tried several times to complete his education and earn a formal degree, but it didn’t happen. “So, in jail, I made full use of the time to gain as many degrees as I could,” he shares.

As strange as it may sound, among the first undergraduate degrees that Siddiqui enrolled himself was Tourism. “I wanted to keep my brain stimulated somehow and not let the incarceration consume me. So, I went on this rage of enrolling myself for every opportunity that was made available,” he recalls. He knew how to read Urdu, Arabic but didn’t possess a formal degree. “So, I got one while in jail.” Siddiqui, who worked as a Desktop Publishing (DTP) operator as a local publishing house in Mumbai, now holds an MBA degree, master’s degrees in English Literature, Sociology, Marketing, and Financial Management, and diplomas in Nutrition and Mass Communication, among others. He is in the final semester of a three-year law degree. If not studying, Siddiqui would take care of the small garden outside the barrack. “Those plants were the only pretty thing to look at,” Siddiqui laughs. The prison rules don’t allow assignment of any work to a death row convict. Which means, even though Siddiqui worked, he was not paid for his labour.

According to the Maharashtra state’s revised prison rules, a convicted prisoner is paid up to Rs. 65 per day, although a paltry sum and much lower than the minimum wages standards, yet some money that most incarcerated people look forward to to lead a dignified life in jail or to take back home at the end of their jail term. Having spent nearly two decades in different prisons of Maharashtra, Siddiqui says the level of surveillance is “simply unnerving” now. “You will find hundreds of cameras loom overhead. Even a slight movement for exercise inside your barrack is instantly tracked, and jail officials confront you with a barrage of questions,’ he says.” Surveillance doesn’t stop here. Abdul Wahid Shaikh, one of 13 arrested in this case and acquitted in 2015, and several other terror accused have had to install multiple CCTVs inside and outside their homes to simply shield themselves from police harassment.

‘Since release, every experience feels new’

On July 21, when the high court acquitted the 12 men, their release orders were immediately executed – an unusual move. In many cases, even after the court order reaches jail authorities, releases are delayed, just to allow the state to file an appeal in the higher court. “Maybe they just wanted us out. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, stating before the Supreme Court that the state no longer wanted us in jail is quite telling,” Siddiqui points out. Since his release, every experience feels “new,” Siddiqui says. He and his co-defendant, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, boarded a flight from Nagpur to Mumbai. “Hairaan kar diya Mohammed Ali ne (Mohammed Ali exhausted me),” he laughingly shares, as he narrates the experience of tasting freedom for the first time in two decades. “He was so excited he simply couldn’t stop talking. I worried his chatter would draw attention. I told him, ‘Bhai, agle ek ghanta shaant rehna (Brother, stay calm for the next hour).”

At Mumbai airport, they were met by a media frenzy. “We didn’t know how to handle this sudden attention; the last time we experienced anything like this was two decades ago at the time of our arrest,” Siddiqui says. In Mumbai, they had the chance to take a train to reach the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind (an organisation that provided legal aid to the men all along) office but chose not to. When asked why, Siddiqui pauses but says nothing. At the time of his arrest, Siddiqui lived in Mira Road, but he now stays with his family in Younuspur, Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh, where his parents, four siblings, and, most importantly, his wife, Sabina, reside. Siddiqui and Sabina were married for less than a year at the time of his arrest in 2006. Siddiqui was only 23 at the time of his arrest, Sabina even younger.

‘She stood by me, and my parents cared for her as their own’

“In those 19 years, I must have told her many times this could be an endless wait and that I wouldn’t hold it against her if she sought a divorce. But she was steadfast. She stood by me, and my parents cared for her as their own,” Siddiqui says. He calls Sabina the “real hero” of his story. “Her resilience and trust in me was so deep.I can’t express my gratitude enough,” he tells The Wire. Returning to Younuspur was an emotional homecoming. “When I got home, we just cried. We barely talked; we just cried for many hours.” Relatives and well-wishers have been visiting non-stop. “I don’t recall most faces, but it would be rude to say so, so I simply nod. When I was behind bars, these individuals offered support and solidarity to my family. Now they are here again to celebrate my freedom. It’s all too surreal,” he says.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

Siddiqui might have returned with close to two dozen degrees, but the future still looks “uncertain,” he admits. “Finding a job might not be possible. Maybe I will consider pursuing a legal profession,” he thinks aloud. But for now, he says he wants to just return to writing those many stories he has. “The ones I’ve safely kept locked inside me for so many years.”

Source: https://thewire.in/rights/when-i-got-home-we-just-cried-a-muslim-mans-journey-from-the-phansi-yard-to-acquittal

Jharkhand HC delivers verdicts pending for years within week after death row convicts moves SC

On July 14, the top court agreed to examine the plea of the convicts and sought a response from the state government and the high court within a week.

PTI Last Updated : 27 July 2025, 12:34 IST

The new building of the Jharkhand High Court.Credit: Jharkhand High Court website

New Delhi: The Jharkhand High Court has delivered verdicts on 10 convicts, six of them on death row, all in a week, after they moved the Supreme Court complaining delay in deciding their appeals against conviction despite the verdicts having been reserved years ago. On July 14, the top court agreed to examine the plea of the convicts and sought a response from the state government and the high court within a week. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which took up the matter on July 21, was informed by advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for the convicts, that the judgment had been pronounced by the high court on different dates.

The top court noted in its order that in the case of life convicts Amit Kumar Das and Basant Kumar Mahto, their convictions and sentence had been set aside by the high court on July 16 and July 18, respectively, and while Das had been released from jail, Mahato remained behind the bars, as the judgement was not uploaded. It said similar recourse should be followed in case of death row convict Nitesh Sahu, whose appealhad been dismissed.

The top court noted that in the case of Sanatan Baski and Sukhlal Murmu, both death row convicts inthe same case, the judgement had been delivered by the high court on July 17. Still, there was adifference of opinion, and the matter was referred to a third judge. The bench requested the newly appointed chief justice of the Jharkhand High Court to take up thesematters on his bench and try to decide them at the earliest. It noted that in the case of three other death row convicts, the high court pronounced verdicts on July18, and their appeals had been dismissed.

The top court asked the state legal service authority to contact convicts, Gandhi Oraon, Rohit Rai, andBandhan Oraon, and assist them in filing an appeal in the apex court or a plea for remission beforethe appropriate authorities. Similar directions were passed in the case of Pratap Sahi, a life convict, as his sentence was already suspended while the order on his appeal was pending. Nine of 10 convicts were imprisoned in Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi's Hotwar, whereas onewas lodged in the Central Jail in Dumka district. The top court, which has called for reports from all high courts where cases havebeen pending for years after being reserved for judgement, asked the registry to provide the reports toShakil for collation and posted the matter for hearing on September 22.

On May 5, the top court frowned upon the high court and sought reports within a month from all highcourts on cases where judgements were reserved on or before January 31.

Source: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jharkhand/jharkhand-hc-delivers-verdicts-pending-for-years-within-week-after-death-row-convicts-moves-sc-3650814

Beheading Over 'Witchcraft': Calcutta HC Commutes Death Sentence to Life Term

By - Salil Tiwari |

 26 July 2025 5:42 PM 

In 2017, Radha Kanta Bera beheaded his grandmother, calling her a witch, and walked home carrying her severed head in one hand and the weapon in the other In a chilling case of alleged witchcraft-driven violence, the Calcutta High Court on July 22, 2025, commuted the death sentence awarded to a 28-year-old man for beheading his grandmother to life imprisonment, citing his mental condition, socio-economic background, and scope for reformation. The convict, Radha Kanta Bera, was found guilty of murdering his grandmother, Tarubala Bera, on February 9, 2017, in a remote village in Jhargram district. As per prosecution witnesses, the accused forcibly dragged the 65-year-old woman to a Kali temple near her house, accused her of being a witch, and beheaded her with a sharp weapon as an alleged human sacrifice. He was reportedly seen walking back home with her severed head in one hand and the weapon in the other. 

The Sessions Court had, in May 2023, convicted Bera under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him the death penalty, calling the act brutal and unforgivable. However, on appeal and reference before the high court, a division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi found the trial court’s conclusion insufficient to justify a death sentence. The High Court observed that while the evidence convincingly established Bera’s guilt, including eyewitness testimonies from the victim’s daughter (PW1), husband (PW2), and son-in-law (PW3), supported by post-mortem findings, the sentencing lacked the necessary judicial examination of mitigating factors. 

Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the bench stressed the need for individualized sentencing and thorough evaluation before awarding capital punishment. Court took into account a comprehensive set of reports, including psychological, socio-economic, and medical evaluations. The reports revealed that Bera suffered from intermittent violent mental episodes after falling from a bus roof, often leading his family to restrain him at home. He had no prior criminal record, studied only up to Class V, worked as an agricultural laborer, and belonged to a poor, uneducated family. His behavior in correctional custody was reportedly good, and he showed signs of being mentally disturbed but not beyond reform. 

“We are not in a position to return a definite finding that the appellant is beyond reformation… the facts and circumstances of the case under which the offence was committed, cannot be said to bring the case in the category of ‘rarest of rare',” court ruled. Accordingly, the bench commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, setting aside the trial court’s capital sentence. It directed prison authorities to update their records and apply Section 428 CrPC to count time already served. 

Case Title: State of West Bengal vs. Radha Kanta Bera 

Judgment Date: July 22, 2025 

Bench: Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi

Source:

https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/beheading-over-witchcraft-calcutta-high-court-commutes-death-sentence-to-life-term-1514093

Harayana - Raping daughter for 4 yrs, impregnating her not ‘rarest of rare’—HC turns death penalty to 30 yrs in jail

Haryana man's crime act of betrayal of trust, but not grave enough to warrant death sentence, says Punjab & Haryana HC. Bench takes into account 'chance for reformation'.

Sushil Manav

25 July, 2025 05:09 pm IST

Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man from Palwal man to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment. He was convicted by the trial court at Palwal in October 2023 of repeatedly raping his 17-year-old daughter and making her pregnant.The court ruled that, though among the most heinous, the convict’s crime failed to meet the Supreme Court’s rigorous “rarest of rare” criteria for capital punishment. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, found the man’s conviction in order as there was sufficient evidence against him, but commuted his death sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, highlighting the judiciary’s cautious approach to capital punishment even in cases of extreme depravity. “It goes without saying that the accused having subjected his minor daughter to repeated penetrative sexual assault and having impregnated her has committed one of the most heinous crimes of the gravest form and would hardly call for any kind of leniency in the matter of sentence,” the High Court observed in its judgment. The bench, however, made it clear that despite the abhorrent nature of the crime, “the case is not such to be termed as ‘rarest of rare cases’ so as to justify the death sentence.”

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill

Considering the grave nature of the offence and the breach of trust involving a father sexually assaulting his own child, the Palwal sessions court had condemned the accused to the death penalty. In its verdict, the Palwal court had relied on medical evidence, testimony of the victim and other corroborative evidence that established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Jile Singh was convicted of having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 506(II) IPC for criminal intimidation. The trial judge had sentenced him to capital punishment, subject to the High Court’s confirmation, for the heinousness of the crime—a father repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter for over four years, getting her pregnant, and warning her with terrible consequences if she opened her mouth.

The judgment of the High Court outlined the voluminous evidence that confirmed the accused’s culpability. The victim, who was a minor at the time of the filing of the FIR on 2 October 2020, narrated a consistent and ghastly story of abuse. In the statement before the police under under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she described how, after her mother’s death, her father had started subjecting her to continuous penetrative sexual assault, leading to pregnancy and the delivery of a female child. She explained, “My father has been perpetrating physical excesses on me on a continuous basis and intimidated me with serious repercussions if I revealed it to anyone. I am pregnant and have a 4-month pregnancy. My father has fathered the child.” She added that her father kept her grandparents away so that they would not know about the abuse. Multiple evidence supported the testimony of the victim.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Medical examination done at the Civil Hospital, Palwal, established evidence of sexual assaults. Forensic examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, disclosed a “perfect match” between the DNA profile of seminal stains on the clothes of the victim and swabs and that of the blood sample of the accused. Also, the DNA profile of the baby was the same as that of the accused, conclusively determining paternity. The High Court found no inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, dismissing the accused’s claim that the victim fabricated allegations due to an affair with a scrap dealer. The court took the confession by the victim of being familiar with the dealer as proof of her honesty since she did not keep the relationship a secret and there was no proof to defend the argument that the person was the father.

High Court’s Reasoning for Commuting the Death Sentence

While upholding the conviction, the High Court carefully considered if the death penalty was justified. Based on the evidence on record and the gravity of the offence, trial court had considered the case as “rarest of rare,” citing a serious breach of trust in a father-daughter relationship, the long duration of abuse, and the consequent pregnancy. It also directed Rs 10.5 lakh as compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020. But the High Court, following Supreme Court precedents, held that the case, though heinous, did not reach the level for the award of capital punishment.

The bench relied heavily on the SC’s pathbreaking decision in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), which determined that the death penalty must be reserved only for the “rarest of rare” situations in which the brutality of the crime and its effects on society preclude any chance for reform or leniency. The court also mentioned Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) where a three-judge Supreme Court bench commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years without remission for rape and murder of a minor girl by an acquaintance of the victim. Equally, in Kashi Nath Singh alias Kallu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand (2023) 7 SCC 317, the Supreme Court ruled life imprisonment instead of death in a similar offence. The High Court explained that, even though the “heinous and gravest form” of the offence was perpetrated, there were a number of factors which militated against the death sentence.

Firstly, the bench noted the lack of murder or further bodily harm over and above the sexual assault, which tends to typify “rarest of rare” cases. Secondly, although the accused’s conduct was a deep betrayal of trust, the court saw no indication of harm to society as a whole or of a pattern of criminal conduct outside the family, which could thrust the case into the extreme penalty category. Thirdly, the bench took into account the chance for reformation, observing that the accused, although culpable of a base act, did not have characteristics indicative of incorrigibility, an important consideration in death penalty matters. The court focused on a balanced stance, proclaiming, “It goes without saying that the accused having subjected his minor daughter to repeated penetrative sexual assault and having got her pregnant has committed one of the most heinous crimes of the gravest form and would hardly call for any kind of leniency in the matter of sentence.”

(Edited by Viny Mishra)

Source: https://theprint.in/judiciary/raping-daughter-for-4-yrs-impregnating-her-not-rarest-of-rare-hc-turns-death-penalty-to-30-yrs-in-jail/2702098/

Son of British mum on death row in India says 'I want to watch her hanged'

Ramandeep Kaur Mann faces the death penalty in India for murdering her husband Sukhjit Singh while he slept.

Annabal Bagdi and William Gaddi

11:35, 25 Jul 2025

Ramandeep Kaur Mann (Image: Facebook)

The son of a British mum facing the death penalty in India has said he wants to watch her hanged.Ramandeep Kaur Mann was convicted after trial of killing husband Sukhjit Singh, with the help of her secret lover Gurpreet Singh while on a family trip to India in 2017. Ramandeep laced her husband's biryani with sedatives before smothering him with a pillow as he slept. Gurpreet then bashed childhood friend Sukhjit over the head with a hammer, with Ramandeep finally slitting his throat, reports the the Birmingham Mail. The brutal murder in Banda, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, was said to be over Sukhjit's £2 million life insurance policy. Ramandeep's eldest son Arjun, who was nine at the time, helped secure his mother's conviction. He woke up and witnessed the horrific killing. He even gave evidence against his mum in court, Daily Mail reports. Ramandeep's legal team has since claimed Arjun was was 'tutored' to provide false and that relatives fabricated the case against her.

They are now appealing her conviction. But Arjun - whose family is from from Littleover, Derby - has said that he does not regret giving evidence in court and wants to watch his mum being hanged. He said: "There are not many children who watch their mother kill their father and then give evidence about it. "How do you try and get on with your life after something like this? "I’ve had to be very brave and I’m proud of what I’ve done because I’ve got justice for my father. "My brother and me don’t think of this woman as my mother anymore, she’s evil. "We want nothing to do with her. As far as I’m concerned, she stopped being a mother to us the moment she murdered our father." Commenting on her death sentence, he said: "I would like to be there when it happens.

"It doesn’t fill me with fear, in fact, it would give me a lot of satisfaction and relief and I look forward to that day. "I would like all my family to be there with me. I would like to see with my own eyes that justice for my father has been served. "She deserves to hang because she did such an evil thing she did."

Source: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/son-british-mum-death-row-35616663

Jharkhand HC commutes death sentence in 2018 Gumla rape-murder

The case pertains to 2018 rape-and-murder of a toddler in Gumla district on September 23, 2018. The convict, Bandhan Oraon was eventually found guilty and sentenced to death

By: Express News Service

Ranchi | Updated: July 24, 2025 04:05 AM IST

The Jharkhand High Court Tuesday commuted the death sentence in the 2018 Gumla rape-and-murder to life term, saying that the case “does not fall under the rarest of rare” category. A Division Bench led by Justice Rangon Mukhopadhyay passed the order on Tuesday while hearing two appeals — one filed by the convict, Bandhan Oraon, against the lower court’s verdict and the other by the state government seeking confirmation of the death sentence.

Justice Rangon Mukhopadhyay

The case pertains to 2018 rape-and-murder of a toddler in Gumla district on September 23, 2018. The convict, Bandhan Oraon was eventually found guilty and sentenced to death. The case was then referred to the high court since the law mandates that all death penalties must be confirmed by it. Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, who represented the Jharkhand government, told The Indian Express: “Bandhan Oraon had appealed against his conviction and sentence. I appeared for the State and both sides presented detailed arguments before the Court reserved its judgment. The appeal has now been dismissed on merits, but the court chose to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment.”

This is the third such instance in this month where the Jharkhand high court has commuted a death sentence in a case involving a minor. On July 18, the court commuted the death sentence of a convict, Rohit Rai, in the 2017 rape-and-murder of a toddler saying there was a possibility of reformation given that the convict had no prior criminal record. The same day, the court also commuted the death sentence of another convict in a 2014 case saying that the circumstances did not justify capital punishment.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jharkhand-hc-commutes-death-sentence-in-2018-gumla-rape-murder-10145628/

Madhya Pradesh - Man Gets Death Sentence For Killing Mother To Seize Her Rs 32 Lakh FD

Following losses, he targeted his mother's FD of Rs 32 lakh, wherein he was the sole nominee, according to the prosecution

Press Trust of India

India News

Jul 24, 2025 17:28 pm IST

Sheopur: A trial court in Madhya Pradesh's Sheopur has sentenced a 26-year-old man to death for murdering a woman who had adopted him as her son and concealing the body in a wall to usurp her fixed deposit of Rs 32 lakh. A mother is revered as equal to God in the Indian tradition and her murder is inexcusable, the court observed in its order passed on Wednesday, according to the prosecutor. Additional Sessions Judge L D Solanki pronounced the death penalty to Deepak Pachauri, a resident of Railway Colony in Sheopur district, after finding him guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his mother Usha Devi last year.

Special Public Prosecutor Rajendra Jadhav said Pachauri filed a missing person complaint at Sheopur Kotwali police station on May 8, 2024. However, inconsistencies in his statements raised suspicion. The man later confessed to the murder during interrogation, Superintendent of Police Virendra Jain said.

He was adopted about 20 years back by Usha Devi and her husband Bhuvendra Pachauri from an orphanage in Gwalior. After his father's death in 2021, Pachauri withdrew Rs 16.85 lakh from his father's fixed deposits. He invested Rs 14 lakh in the stock market and spent the rest. Following losses, he targeted his mother's FD of Rs 32 lakh, wherein he was the sole nominee, according to the prosecution.

When Usha Devi refused to give him money, he planned her murder. On May 6, 2024, he pushed his mother while she was climbing stairs. When that failed to kill her, he struck her with an iron rod and strangled her, the prosecution said. He wrapped the body in a red cloth and concealed it inside a wall beneath a staircase toilet using cement, sand and bricks. During the investigation, the police exhumed the body in the presence of an executive magistrate and seized the iron rod and other materials, Jadhav said.

Forensic examination was also conducted. The police had registered a case under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the IPC after gathering sufficient evidence and filed a chargesheet in the court against the accused.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/madhya-pradeshs-sheopur-news-latest-madhya-pradesh-news-latest-man-26-gets-death-sentence-for-killing-mother-to-seize-her-rs-32-lakh-fd-8939360

Jharkhand - One judge upholds death sentence, other acquits: Split ruling in Jharkhand HC on Maoist ambush that killed 6 cops

By Hardik Khandelwal

21 July 2025, 1:50 PM

4 minutes, 36 seconds Read

Jharkhand High Court delivers a split verdict on the 2013 Maoist attack that killed SP Amarjit Balihar and five policemen. One judge acquits the accused, the other confirms their death sentence.

Ranchi: On July 17, a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court gave a split verdict on the appeals filed by two Maoist convicts, Pravir Murmu alias Pravir Da and Sanatan Baskey alias Tala Da.

They were earlier sentenced to death by the Dumka Sessions Court on September 26, 2018, for their alleged role in a deadly Maoist attack that claimed the lives of Pakur Superintendent of Police (SP) Amarjit Balihar and five other police personnel on July 2, 2013.

The case was heard by Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Sanjay Prasad. While Justice Mukhopadhyay decided to acquit both the convicts, Justice Prasad upheld the death sentence awarded to them. The verdict, spread across 197 pages, has now been referred to the Chief Justice of the High Court for further action due to the split in opinion.

As per legal protocol in such situations, the matter will now be referred to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Kumar Vashistha clarified that the conflicting opinions of the two judges necessitate reassignment of the case. He stated: 

“The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who will reconstitute a bench to rehear the case.”

Vashistha also added that Justice Sanjay Prasad considered the case to fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category, justifying the imposition of the death penalty under Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The incident in question happened near the Jamni crusher plant under Kathikund police station in Dumka district, where a police convoy led by SP Amarjit Balihar was ambushed by Maoists.

The assailants opened indiscriminate fire, killing SP Balihar along with Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Hembram, Chandan Kumar Thapa, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, and Santosh Kumar Mandal. Two constables, Lebenius Marandi and Dhanraj Maraiya, survived the attack and later became eyewitnesses in the case.

According to the FIR lodged at Kathikund Police Station, the two surviving constables said they were suddenly fired upon by the Maoists and had no time to react.

Both of them also claimed they heard the attackers calling out the names “Pravir Da” and “Tala Da” during the assault.

The prosecution examined a total of 31 witnesses, including these two key eyewitnesses. Based on the evidence and statements, the Dumka Sessions Judge found the two accused guilty and awarded them the death penalty.

Sanatan Baskey and Pravir Murmu later challenged the decision by filing separate appeals in the High Court—Sanatan on December 14, 2018, and Pravir on December 18, 2018.

Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, after going through the evidence and testimonies, held that the statements of the two eyewitnesses were not trustworthy.

He noted:

“The witnesses had deposed that they had become unconscious after the shooting and therefore could not have heard the names of the appellants.”

He further observed:

“Though both Marandi and Maraiya were witnesses to the occurrence, they had not seen the convicts participating in the mayhem.”

As a result, he concluded in paragraph 68 of the judgment:

“The order of conviction and the death sentence awarded to the convicts is hereby set aside.”

However, Justice Sanjay Prasad strongly disagreed with this view. He said the eyewitnesses, who were also part of the police team, clearly identified the two accused in court.

He said,

“The eyewitnesses had identified Prabir Da and Tala Da in the court to be present at the place of occurrence,”

Stressing the seriousness of the crime, he added:

“The gruesome death of an IPS officer, along with his police team in discharge of their official duty, were murdered in broad daylight does not evoke any sympathy.”

While upholding the death sentence, Justice Prasad directed the state government to provide compensation and support to the victims’ families.

ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Replaces Death Sentence with Life Term in Brutal Stabbing Case

He ordered:

“A compensation of Rs 2 crores should be given to the kith and kin of Amarjit Balihar.”

Additionally, he said:

“A job in the rank of DSP/deputy collector should be provided to the son or daughter of the deceased police officer.”

Justice Prasad also directed that

“a compensation of Rs 50 lakh each should also be provided to the family members of the five police constables who died in the incident and a Grade-IV job in the govt on compassionate grounds.”

As the two judges gave contradictory decisions on the appeals, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who will take appropriate steps as per law, likely by forming a larger bench to decide the matter.

The case continues to remain one of the most sensitive and impactful in recent memory in Jharkhand, as it not only involved the brutal murder of high-ranking police officers but also highlighted the ongoing threat of Maoist violence in the region.

CASE TITLE:

State of Jharkhand v/s Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu @ Pravir Da @ Pravil Da @ Harendra Da @ Sanat Da @ Marang Da @ Amrit and Sanatan Baski @ Tala Da AND Batch Death Ref No 4 of 2018

Source: https://lawchakra.in/high-court/ips-officer-split-on-death-sentence-in-sp/

Jharkhand HC commutes death sentence of rape-murder convict to life imprisonment

18 July, 2025 08:37 pm IST


Ranchi, Jul 18 (PTI) The Jharkhand High Court on Friday commuted a man’s death penalty in a minor’s rape and murder case to life imprisonment.

A division bench heard the appeal filed by Gandhi Oraon who was convicted by a sessions court here for rape and murder of a minor and awarded death sentence on January 31, 2018. The division bench said it did not find the case to be the”rarest of rare” and commuted the death sentence awarded to Oraon to life imprisonment.


Oraon was found guilty of rape and murder of a minor on March 19, 2014. He had dumped her body in the graveyard at Kantatoli in the capital. 

PTI CORR NAM NN

Source: https://theprint.in/india/jharkhand-hc-commutes-death-sentence-of-rape-murder-convict-to-life-imprisonment/2695077/

SC commutes death sentences of 2 to life term without remission

By Abraham Thomas, New Delhi

Published on: Jul 17, 2025 07:42 am IST

The Supreme Court sentenced two death row convicts to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need to consider psychological and social factors in capital cases.

The Supreme Court in separate cases decided on Wednesday ordered two death row convicts to remain in jail for the rest of their lives without remission considering elaborate reports of their social background study, psychological analysis and the mitigating factors to save them from the gallows. The bench headed by justice Vikram Nath, which decided both cases, underlined that in death penalty cases, the high courts should take into consideration the psychological analysis and the social setting of the convict and not rely solely on the brutality of the crime while affirming punishment.

Both cases that came before the court were gruesome and diabolical. The first instance was from Karnataka where a man mercilessly hacked to death his wife, sister-in-law and three children on a belief that his wife had an immoral character and the three children were born as a result of such immoral activities. The incident was of 2017 and both the trial court and Karnataka high court sentenced him to death. The convict in the second case from Uttarakhand, also suffered consecutive death penalty orders from the trial court and high court, in a case where he raped and murdered a minor girl in Dehradun in 2018. The bench, also comprising justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta relied on a 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court in Manoj vs State of MP that set a precondition for courts to send a person to the gallows only after due consideration of the entire background of facts and circumstances that have landed the accused person at the “precipice of death”. The court noted that in the two cases under consideration, this rule was somewhat given a miss as the high court failed to examine the social and psychological backdrop of the convicts.

While affirming the conviction in both cases, the bench directed both the convicts to remain forever in jail. In the first instance, the court held, “While we affirm the findings of the courts below regarding the appellant-convict’s conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of his family members, on the aspect of sentencing, we hold that despite having considerable information before it, the high court did not consider it appropriately and sufficiently, in view of the findings recorded in the said reports.” The court examined the probation report which revealed the convict Byluru Thippaiah had no criminal antecedents and his “Conduct and Behavioural Report” submitted by the prison authorities showed him to possess “good moral character” and “good conduct” with co-prisoners and prison officials. He became literate by participating in the Basic Literacy Program organized by the Zilla Lok Shiksha Samiti and obtained a good rank. Justice Karol, writing the two judgments, in the present case said, “Once incarcerated, it appears that mental health struggles have been a constant and unwelcome companion…Considering the sum-total of circumstances that drove the appellant-convict to this point of committing this crime of a most reprehensible nature, the death penalty may not be appropriate.”

On two occasions, the convict attempted suicide inside jail - once on coming to know about the death of his entire family and again, when he was sentenced to death for the crime. Even the mitigation report revealed his troubled past. He did not receive love from his parents and felt extremely insecure after his brother’s death. He dropped out from school and his breakdown of marriage with his first wife contributed to depression. Commuting his sentence to life term, the court held, “We are of the view that he should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes committed by him. As such, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent that he is released from death row. Instead, he shall await his last breath in prison, without remission.” Even in the other case, the court noted the brutality of the crime, but did not miss out on the error into which the high court fell by failing to consider the mitigating factors before upholding capital punishment.

The convict Jai Prakash had lured a girl in his neighbourhood to his hut where she was raped and later throttled to death in an incident reported in July 2018. The trial court in 2019 and the Uttarakhand HC in January 2020 passed concurrent findings of conviction and sentenced him to be hanged till death as the victim was a minor. Justice Karol, here too, observed, “The courts below have only commented on the brutality of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the appellant. No other circumstance came to be discussed by the courts in reaching the conclusion that the case forms part of the ‘rarest of the rare’ category. Such an approach in our view cannot be sustained.” At the same time, the court did not belittle the gravity of the crime. It said, “A helpless child was at first, mercilessly raped after being lured into the appellant’s hut on the pretext of buying sweets with the offered money. Thereafter, to hide the evidence of his crime, the child was strangulated by hand, in a defenseless condition.” For this, he was sentenced for offences of murder, rape and destruction of evidence under Sections 302, 201, 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, as also Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault on a minor.

While examining the mitigating factors, the court noted the District Probation Officer, Ayodhya’s report revealing the condition of his family to be “very pathetic” as they earned a livelihood by doing labor work. The psychological report showed that he did not attend school due to the socio-economic condition at home and did menial jobs to earn money for the family at the tender age of 12. HIs conduct in jail was satisfactory as he maintained good relations with fellow inmates and did not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance. Considering all these aspects, the court held, “Taking into account the above mitigating circumstances and the threshold of ‘rarest of rare’ category, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty.”

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-commutes-death-sentences-of-2-to-life-term-without-remission-101752691798386.html#google_vignette

Man Sentenced To Death For Rape And Murder Of Minor Girl In Bengal

Noting that the victim was of the same age as the accused's daughter, the judge observed that the crime falls under the rarest of rare category.

Jun 11, 2025 16:52 pm IST

Jalpaiguri: A special POCSO court here awarded death sentence to a man for the rape and murder of a minor girl in West Bengal's Jalpaiguri district. Noting that the victim was of the same age as the accused's daughter, the judge observed that the crime falls under the rarest of rare category.

The court sentenced convict Haripada Roy to death for the rape and murder of the girl. Jalpaiguri special POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) court judge Rintu Sur also directed the district legal services authority to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the victim's family. He was also sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for destroying evidence. The 11-year-old girl was abducted from in front of her house by the accused before raping and murdering her on September 29, 2023, prosecution lawyer Debasish Dutta said.The lawyer said that since the panchayat board was being formed on that day, most of the villagers went there, including the victim's father and uncle.

After they returned, the girl's mother told them that she had been missing since 2 pm, and when she was not found after an extensive search, the uncle lodged a missing complaint at Dhupguri police station in Jalpaiguri district. The body of the girl was found in a sack near a local river a few days later. A post mortem examination of the body revealed that she had been raped and strangulated to death, Dutta added. The accused, a neighbour, was arrested following statements by locals that the girl was seen entering his house, followed by the recovery of evidence, the prosecution lawyer said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/man-sentenced-to-death-for-rape-and-murder-of-minor-girl-in-west-bengals-jalpaiguri-8642010

UP Women Gets Death Sentence For Drowning Her 3 Children

The woman's nine-year-old son, who survived the attempt on his life, provided crucial testimony in the case.

Jul 11, 2025 14:34 pm IST

Auraiya: A court here has sentenced a woman to death for killing her three minor children by drowning them in the Sengar river in 2024, while her paramour was sentenced to life imprisonment in the case.

The woman's nine-year-old son, who survived the attempt on his life, provided crucial testimony in the case. Additional Sessions Judge Saif Ahmed on Thursday found Priyanka guilty of murdering her own children and pronounced the death penalty. Her paramour Ashish alias Danny was sentenced to life imprisonment. During the trial, the government counsel argued that the act of a mother conspiring with her lover to drown her innocent children was "rarest of the rare." The court also imposed a fine of Rs 2.5 lakh on Priyanka and Rs 1 lakh on Ashish. Furthermore, the court ordered that 75 per cent of the combined fine amount be given to Sonu, the surviving child.

Ashish alias Danny (L); Priyanka (R) - Photo Social media - Insta

According to the police, Priyanka was involved in a relationship with Ashish after her husband's death. On June 27, 2024, Priyanka along with Ashish took her four sons -- Sonu (9), Madhav (6), Aditya (4), and Mangal (2) -- to the Sengar river bank in Devarpur. They reportedly drugged the children before throwing them into the water one by one. While locals managed to rescue the eldest boy, Sonu, who regained consciousness and later provided crucial testimony against his mother, the three younger children drowned.

Police arrested both Priyanka and Ashish and subsequently filing a chargesheet against them. Government Counsel Abhishek Mishra stated that the woman's brother-in-law had filed a complaint against her.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/cities/up-women-gets-death-sentence-for-drowning-her-3-children-8859572

CJI recalls Justice Krishna Iyer’s strong stand against death sentence

06 July, 2025 09:30 pm IST

Kochi, Jul 6 (PTI) Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on Sunday recalled the strong stand adopted by eminent jurist Justice V R Krishna Iyer against death sentence.

Justice V R Krishna Iyer

Delivering a commemorative lecture here on the remarkable contributions of Justice Iyer, the CJI remembered his role at various levels–from an activist-lawyer to a minister and a judge. Justice Gavai, during his address, said Justice Iyer stood up for the cause of the poor and under-privileged and remained a human rights champion, a crusader of social justice and a doyen of civil liberties throughout his life. He said Justice Iyer’s compassionate view on the connection between the right to life and socio-economic rights became first visible through his view on the abolition of capital punishment.

Recounting an incident from Justice Iyer’s life, the CJI said he, as a young lawyer, had watched an innocent man be nearly hanged for a crime he never committed. Subsequent cases convinced Justice Iyer that the death sentence was “barbarous and uncivilised,” the Chief Justice said while delivering a lecture on Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s role in balancing fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy. Referring to various cases, Justice Gavai pointed out how Justice Iyer outlined the positive indicators against the death sentence in Indian law.

In one case, he commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment, the CJI said, and detailed how Justice Iyer restricted the scope of the death sentence in another case. Even outside the court, he advocated for the abolition of death sentence, the CJI recalled. Mentioning various incidents, Justice Gavai said Justice Iyer’s legal philosophy was not confined just to court rooms but it was a breathing force that resonated with the struggles of common men. The CJI also detailed Justice Iyer’s influence upon his legal career as a lawyer and as a judge. 

PTI LGK KH

This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Source: https://theprint.in/india/cji-recalls-justice-krishna-iyers-strong-stand-against-death-sentence/2681611/

Uttarakhand High Court appoints amicus curiae for murder convict on death row

03 July, 2025 10:31 am IST

Nainital, Jul 3 (PTI) The Uttarakhand High Court has appointed an amicus curiae to assist it in reviewing capital punishment awarded to a murder convict by a Haridwar court.

A division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra on Wednesday appointed advocate Manisha Bhandari as amicus curiae (friend of the court) and directed her to assist the court in making a decision about the gravity of the crime committed by the convict Haidar Ali and the punishment awarded thereof. According to the law, capital punishment can be granted for “rarest of the rare crimes” meaning thereby that only the most severe and gruesome crimes attract this provision.

Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar

Ali was awarded capital punishment for murdering a woman by sessions judge, Roorkee, Haridwar on June 12. The judgement was then referred to the high court for confirmation. According to a complaint lodged at Ganganagar police station in Roorkee tehsil by Haridwar resident Dinesh, Ali used to often tease his sister and pressurise her for marriage. When she refused, Ali came to his place along with his friends in his absence one day and chopped her head off. 

Justice Alok Mahra

PTI COR ALM ALM DV DV

Source: https://theprint.in/india/uttarakhand-high-court-appoints-amicus-curiae-for-murder-convict-on-death-row/2678044/

Kolkata court awards death penalty to man in 2015 elderly couple's murder

Sanjoy Sen alias Bappa, was convicted of double murder and held guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 394 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code by Sealdah Court.

Rajesh Saha

Kolkata,UPDATED: Jul 2, 2025 21:55 IST

Written By: Avijit Das

A Kolkata court on Wednesday awarded the death penalty to a person accused of murdering an elderly couple in the Chitpur area of the city a decade back. Sanjoy Sen alias Bappa, was convicted of double murder by Judge Anirban Das at the Sealdah Court, who held him guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 394 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case dates back to July 16, 2015, when officers from Chitpur Police Station were alerted to a foul smell from a flat on Rani Debendra Bala Road. Upon arrival, officers broke open the flat which was locked from outside. On entering the flat, police discovered the bodies of 77-year-old Pran Gobinda Das and his wife, Renuka Das, lying in pools of blood in separate rooms of their residence. Both victims had suffered fatal injuries. A complaint was lodged by Partha Sen, nephew of the deceased, following which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC against an unknown accused. Given the gravity of the crime, the case was transferred to the Homicide Squad of the Kolkata Police Detective Department. During the investigation, police arrested Sanjoy Sen, a resident of the Chitpur area and an acquaintance of the victims. He was arrested after evidence collected from the scene linked him directly to the crime.

During interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime and, based on his statement, police recovered a large cache of gold ornaments and Rs 1.87 lakh in cash hidden in Nandigram in East Midnapore. The murder weapon-an iron pipe-and the blood-stained clothes of the accused were also recovered from a pond during the investigation. The trial was conducted in the Sealdah court, where 30 witnesses were examined. Special Public Prosecutor Sandip Bhattacharya presented a watertight case backed by circumstantial, physical, and digital evidence. On Tuesday, the court found Sanjoy Sen guilty and sentenced him to death on Wednesday, July 2.

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kolkata-court-sealdah-court-death-sentence-in-double-murder-of-elderly-couple-under-ipc-2749740-2025-07-02