Calcutta HC Upholds Child Rape-Murder Conviction (S.302 IPC, S.6 POCSO), Commutes Death Sentence to Life (50 Yrs No Remission) Citing Mitigating Factors & Lack of 'Rarest of Rare' Criteria - 2025-06-17

Tracking Legal Developments.

Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape-Murder Case, Upholds Conviction

Kolkata, West Bengal - The Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on June 17, 2025, upheld the conviction of Suresh Paswan for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 2 ½-year-old girl. However, the division bench, comprising The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak and The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi , commuted the death sentence awarded by the trial court to life imprisonment, stipulating that Paswan shall serve a minimum of 50 years without remission from the date of his arrest.

The judgment addressed Death Reference No. 02 of 2019, initiated by the State of West Bengal, and Criminal Appeal C.R.A. 384 of 2019, filed by Suresh Paswan , challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, on March 26 and 28, 2019, respectively.

Background of the Gruesome Crime

The case dates back to July 20, 2013, when a 2 ½-year-old girl, residing on a footpath beneath a flyover at Khidderpore with her grandmother, Nayan Sardar (PW3), went missing in the middle of the night. The following morning, her lifeless body was discovered in a drain near the Race Course, with injuries indicating sexual assault and murder.

The trial court had found Suresh Paswan guilty of offences under Sections 364 (kidnapping), 376A (rape causing death or persistent vegetative state), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012. He was sentenced to death for murder, alongside other concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellant's Contentions ( Suresh Paswan ): Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Kallol Mondal, the appellant argued that: * The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with an incomplete chain of circumstances. * There were no eyewitnesses to the incident. * Testimonies of key witnesses (PW6 and PW7, who claimed to have seen Paswan with the child) were unreliable due to alleged insufficient lighting and termed "unnatural, motivated and tutored." * The recovery of the victim's apparel at Paswan 's behest was suspicious. * Certain witnesses (PW8, PW9) were "stock witnesses" for the police. * The initial medical examination (PW14) and FSL report did not conclusively establish sexual assault. * The investigation was perfunctory with material contradictions.

State's Submissions: Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Debasish Roy contended that the prosecution had proven its case with cogent and convincing evidence, justifying the trial court's conviction and the death sentence.

High Court's Upholding of Conviction

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, comprising testimonies from 32 prosecution witnesses and various documentary and material exhibits. Key findings affirming the conviction included:

Circumstantial Evidence: The Court found the chain of circumstances complete. Witnesses PW6 and PW7 identified Paswan carrying the child, their visibility corroborated by reports from CESC, PWD, and HRBC confirming adequate street lighting.

Witness Testimonies: PW4 and PW5, local residents, testified to seeing Paswan loitering suspiciously in the area around the time of the incident. PW10 and PW11, Race Course security personnel, confirmed Paswan 's late-night entry into and exit from the stable where he worked, carrying a black polythene bag.

Recovery of Evidence: The victim's wearing apparel was recovered from a garbage dump based on Paswan 's leading statement, as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, witnessed by PW8 and PW9.

Medical and Forensic Evidence: The autopsy surgeon (PW17) detailed 17 injuries on the victim, opining that death was due to manual strangulation and that specific injuries indicated sexual assault.

Appellant's Conduct: Paswan 's abscondence to his native village in Bihar after the incident, from where a railway ticket dated July 21, 2013, was recovered, was considered incriminating.

The Court concluded: "The circumstances, set forward by the prosecution, leave no space for any other hypothesis but of the guilt of the appellant alone." (Para 70) Thus, the conviction under Sections 364/376A/302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act was upheld.

Commutation of Death Sentence: Application of Legal Principles

While affirming the conviction, the High Court extensively deliberated on the imposition of the death penalty, referencing several Supreme Court landmark judgments:

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) : Emphasizing the "rarest of rare" doctrine and the need to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) : Reiterating that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception, to be imposed only when life imprisonment is "altogether inadequate."

Ramesh A Naika vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2025 SCC OnLine SC 575) : Noting that in circumstantial evidence cases, the evidence must be unimpeachable and the case exceptional for a death sentence.

The Court identified several mitigating circumstances for Suresh Paswan :

* Age: 45 years.

* Socio-economic background: Extreme poverty, nil education.

* Psychological Evaluation: Mild mental disability (attributed to lack of education).

* Nature of Crime: While heinous, the Court found no evidence of pre-planning or prior enmity.

* Possibility of Reformation: Not explicitly ruled out.

The judgment stated: "In any case, we are not in a position to return a finding that the offence involved in the case at hand falls under the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ to justify the punishment of death." (Para 77)

Final Order and Implications

The Calcutta High Court, therefore, commuted Suresh Paswan 's death sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment, with the specific direction that "the imprisonment of life so awarded to the appellant shall mean imprisonment for life without remission until 50 years from the date of his arrest." (Para 78)

The sentences for offences under Section 376A IPC (20 years RI and fine), Section 364 IPC (8 years RI and fine), and Section 6 POCSO Act (8 years RI and fine) were affirmed, all to run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by Paswan will be set off.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's rigorous approach to circumstantial evidence in grave crimes and the high threshold for imposing the irrevocable death penalty, even in cases involving heinous offences against children, by carefully weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.