The court emphasized the importance of mitigating circumstances, the sufficiency of evidence, and the societal perception in determining the appropriateness of death penalty.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. This death reference has arisen from the judgment of conviction dated July 28, 2022 and the order of sentence dated August 1, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 15th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas South in Sessions Trial No. 01 (09) 2014.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction dated July 28, 2022, the learned judge has found the accused to be guilty of murder and causing disappearance of evidence of murder. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned judge has awarded a sentence of death to the convict for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned judge has sentenced the convict to rigourous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default for the simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Prosecution witness (PW) No. 1 had lodged a written complaint with the police on July 16, 2013. Police had registered a First Information Report dated July 16, 2013 with regard to the complaint of PW 1. Police had submitted a charge sheet on the conclusion of the investigation.

4. The case of the prosecution at the trial had been that, the convict murdered his parents and caused certain evidence of such offence to disappear with the intention to save himself from legal punishment in between 21:00 hours of July 15, 2013 and 8:30 hours of July 16, 2013 at 161, Talpukur Road, Kolkata 700061.

5. Charges against the convicted had been framed on September 2, 2014 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The convict had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. At the trial, the prosecution had relied upon 16 witnesses and various documentary and material evidences to prove the charges as against the convict. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the convict had been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the convict pleaded to be not guilty.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the convict has submitted that, the case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had failed to examine any eyewitness to the crime. According to him, the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of evidence for the case of the prosecution. He has pointed out that, no bloodstain had been found from the wearing apparel of the convict. He has pointed out that, although, both the victims were fit and active, the prosecution did not show that, the victim had put up any resistance to prevent the convict from committing the crime.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the convict has submitted that, the dead bodies of the victims were not identified by any of the relatives or the local people. The alleged offending weapon had been seized from the place of occurrence but there was no identification mark put on such alleged offending weapon. He has referred to the report of the Serologist and submitted that, the so-called blood on the alleged offending weapon had already disintegrated and that the blood group could not be detected.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the convict has submitted that, although, two labourers were said to be present in the vicinity of the alleged place of occurrence, but they were not arrested by the police although, it is the claim of the prosecution that, such labourers were hired by the convict.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the convict has referred to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that, none of the prosecution witnesses proved any of the charges as against the convict beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Learned advocate appearing for the convict has submitted that, the convict, during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied all facts and circumstances alleged by the prosecution.

12. Learned advocate appearing for the convict has relied upon 2000 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 286 (Vaasa Chandrashekar Rao versus Ponna Satyanarayana and anot