Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld convictions in a double-homicide but spared the convict from the gallows, commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment with no remission until 40 years from the date of arrest.
The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, who said the case did not warrant the “extreme penalty” despite its brutality.
According to the prosecution, the convict, posing as a healer, promised to cure a young girl’s burn scars through rituals. He allegedly administered sedatives in food during a “Yogya” and then murdered the girl and her mother, attempting to conceal evidence afterwards. The family had already paid him about Rs 1.6 lakh for the supposed treatment. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of the IPC, awarding death for murder. The High Court found the murder charges proven. It noted that medical findings, eyewitness accounts and a videographed reconstruction formed a continuous chain of evidence. Police recoveries — including the weapon and sedative strips — further supported the prosecution’s case.
Autopsy findings played a crucial role. Doctors reported that the mother bore multiple ante-mortem incised wounds and abrasions, with death caused by asphyxia due to gagging and smothering, likely with a sharp cutting instrument. The daughter’s body showed ligature marks and abrasions consistent with strangulation. In contrast, the autopsy revealed no genital injuries, and the bench ruled that “medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation of sexual assault.” On that basis, the rape conviction was set aside.
The judges acknowledged aggravating factors — premeditation, multiple offences and exploitation of faith — but also considered socio-psychological and antecedent reports. They concluded that the death penalty was not mandatory in this case. The court directed that the life term be counted from the date of arrest, with time already spent in custody set off. It ordered that the records and judgment be sent to the appropriate authorities. The court also stressed that contradictions in witness statements “do not, by themselves, vitiate the prosecution case where independent corroboration exists.”