Kolkata, June 13, 2025: In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court commutes death sentence awarded to a young man convicted of brutally murdering a woman he was allegedly in a relationship with, inflicting as many as 45 stab wounds.

The Court held that though the crime was grievous, it did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi passed the verdict while hearing a Death Reference (DR 7 of 2023) and the connected criminal appeal filed by the convict, Susanta Chowdhury, challenging the death sentence imposed by the Fast Track Court.

High Court’s Reasoning: Not Rarest of Rare, But Heinous Enough

The accused was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959 for the murder committed in May 2022. It was alleged that the accused attacked the woman outside her residence, despite resistance from the victim and intervention attempts by bystanders. The post-mortem revealed 45 separate injuries.

While acknowledging the brutality and premeditated nature of the crime, the High Court opined that the aggravating circumstances were not 100%. The young age of the appellant (21 years at the time of crime), questions regarding his mental health, and possibility of reformation were cited as key mitigating factors.

“The crime, although heinous, does not meet the standards of ‘rarest of rare’,” the Bench observed, while substituting the death penalty with life imprisonment without remission for 40 years, starting from the date of arrest.

Additionally, the convict was directed to pay ₹50,000/- fine, failing which he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for five more years under IPC Section 302.

Legal Observations

• The convict had reportedly prepared for the attack by arming himself with a murder weapon and a toy firearm to resist any possible arrest post-commission of the crime.
• Despite the grievous facts and depraved conduct, the High Court applied the doctrine laid down in previous constitutional bench rulings, finding that life without remission could serve the ends of justice.

“The nature of the crime does not justify imposition of capital punishment in light of the mitigating factors and constitutional principles,” the Court held.

Charges and Background

• Section 302, IPC – Murder
• Section 28, Arms Act – Possession and attempted use of imitation firearm post-crime

The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to death, which was challenged before the High Court. The prosecution, led by PP Debashish Roy, contended for upholding the sentence, while the defence, led by Senior Advocate Kallol Mondal, argued for leniency on account of age and mental condition.

Bench and Party Details

• Case Title: The State of West Bengal v. Susanta Chowdhury
• Case Number: DR 7 of 2023
• Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
• For Appellant: Sr. Advocate Kallol Mondal, Advocates Krishan Ray, Anamitra Banerjee
• For Respondent (State): PP Debashish Roy, Advocates Amita Gaur, Shaila Afrin

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…