In a significant ruling on capital sentencing jurisprudence, the Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De, upheld the murder conviction of a man for killing his wife with an axe but commuted his death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Division Bench held that the trial court committed a serious procedural irregularity by imposing capital punishment without calling for prison conduct and psychological evaluation reports, emphasizing that the possibility of reformation and mitigating circumstances had been improperly overlooked.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident that occurred on June 20, 2023, at Maynaguri in Jalpaiguri district. The appellant, Sujit Dey Bhowmik, was visiting the house of his mother-in-law, Kalpana Sarkar (PW 5), where relatives had assembled for a post-funeral ceremony (Shraddha). Following morning tea, a quarrel broke out between Bhowmik and his wife, Mitali Dey Bhowmik, over allegations that he was speaking on the phone with another woman.
During the altercation, Bhowmik attacked his wife with an axe inside the bedroom, inflicting fatal injuries to her head and arms. When her mother (PW 5) and 70-year-old grandmother, Hiranbala Sarkar (PW 6), rushed to rescue her, Bhowmik struck PW 5 on the chest and PW 6 on her back, hands, and face, causing severe trauma and resulting in PW 6 losing vision in one eye. The incident was witnessed by the victim’s sister, Chaitali Sarkar (PW 1), and the couple’s seven-year-old son, Sayan Dey Bhowmik (PW 3).
On April 10, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri, convicted Bhowmik under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting him of charges under Sections 498A and 326. On April 21, 2025, the trial court sentenced him to death under Section 302 and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 307. The death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation alongside the convict’s criminal appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant, counsel argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to major contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses. It was contended that the informant (PW 1) had stepped out to repair her mobile phone during the incident and was not an eye witness. Counsel also challenged the recovery of the offending axe under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, arguing that the seizure witnesses (PW 4 and PW 7) were unreliable and that the disclosure statement failed to comply with statutory standards.
On the question of sentence, the defence argued that the trial judge imposed the death penalty casually as a matter of course. It was highlighted that the incident occurred half an hour after the family had shared breakfast together, ruling out premeditation. Counsel relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Aman Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, stressing that the trial court failed to obtain a jail conduct report or assess mitigating factors, including the appellant’s young age (37 years), absence of criminal antecedents, impoverished background, and the potential for reform.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution case stood established through four eye witnesses, two of whom were injured victims whose testimonies were unimpeachable. The prosecution submitted that the medical evidence, post-mortem report, recovery memo, electronic evidence under Section 65B, and the consistent ocular testimony of the minor child (PW 3) proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, fully justifying the capital punishment awarded by the trial court.
Analysis of the Court
Upon examining the record, the High Court held that the prosecution had proved the charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC to the hilt. The Bench noted that the ocular evidence of the minor son and the two injured witnesses was natural, consistent, and thoroughly corroborated by the medical findings and the recovery of the offending weapon. The Court rejected the challenge to the conviction, observing that the evidence formed an unbroken chain pointing conclusively to the appellant’s guilt.
However, the Bench took strong exception to the approach adopted by the trial court in awarding the death penalty. The High Court observed that the trial judge did not call for any report regarding the appellant’s conduct in custody or mental condition, which constituted a significant procedural irregularity under the Supreme Court’s binding directives in Manoj & Ors. and Aman Singh.
The Court observed:
“The learned Trial Judge did not call for the prison conduct report. Whether there was any chance of reformation or rehabilitation had not been considered. The information of the Probation Officer produced before the Division Bench in the appeal, pursuant to a direction of a Co-ordinate Bench, indicates that the conduct of the appellant was satisfactory. There was a chance of reformation and the appellant was undergoing counselling. The appellant did not have any criminal antecedent.”
Criticizing the reasoning of the trial court, the Bench observed that the trial judge had heavily relied on the sacred vows and Vedic mantras of Hindu marriage to label the appellant a “demon” whose mind could not be changed:
“We do not agree to the death penalty. Every person guilty of commission of a grave offence can undergo transformation. The mitigating circumstances were ignored by the trial court. The fact that the victim, the appellant and the family members had together enjoyed morning tea at the house of PW5 and the crime took place half an hour after breakfast, indicates that the crime might not have been either pre-determined or premeditated.”
Reiterating the core sentencing principles from Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, the Bench emphasized:
“Rigorous imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence is an exception. The manner in which the crime was committed in this case does not stand the test of being a rarest of rare case.”
“Death sentence is imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be altogether an inadequate punishment, having regard to the circumstances of the crime. In this case there are several mitigating circumstances and upon striking the balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances we are not in a position to confirm the sentence of being hanged until death.”
Decision
Balancing the aggravating factors of the crime against the mitigating factors—including the appellant’s socio-economic backwardness, lack of prior criminal history, satisfactory jail conduct, family responsibilities toward his minor son and aging mother, and positive prognosis for reformation—the High Court refused to confirm the death reference.
The Division Bench upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, but commuted the death sentence awarded under Section 302 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for life, directing that the period of detention already undergone be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Dey Bhowmik (with Sujit Dey Bhowmik vs. State of West Bengal)
Case No.: Death Reference No. 3 of 2025 with C.R.A (DB) 32 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De
Date: August 28, 2026
