State of West Bengal vs Nandita Saha @ Mou

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
The State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Nandita Saha @ Mou & Anr. – Respondents
CRA 138 of 2020
Decided on : 12-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Supreme Naskar, Adv. Ms. Jayashree Patra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Dipankar Pramanick, Adv.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/201/34 – Offence of murder – Appeal against conviction - Whether there was any possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of convicts and whether alternate option of life imprisonment was foreclosed – Death penalty - Held, state has neither at the stage of the trial nor before us in appeal provided any materials to show that the convict was beyond reformation and rehabilitation. Failure of the state to provide such information has been held in 2011 volume 13 Supreme Court Cases 706 (Rajesh Kumar versus State) to be a mitigating circumstance - Court consider failure of the state as a mitigating in favor of convict - Award of life imprisonment as a sentence for crime committed by convict was not foreclosed - Court are required to award a sentence commensurate with his crime - Supreme Court in Volume Supreme Court Cases and in Supreme Court Cases has observed that a Constitutional Court can award a sentence of life imprisonment without remission for a specified period - Appeal Disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. This death reference has emanated out of the judgment of conviction dated February 6, 2020 and the order of sentence dated February 7, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 14 (3) 2009.

2. Two accused had faced trial for charges under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned judge has held that the convicts are guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Court has sentenced one of the convicts Nandita Saha to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302/24 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 only and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The other convict namely, Satya Saha has been sentenced to be hanged by the neck till he was dead and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or till date of execution of the death sentence whichever is earlier for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to suffer imprisonment for 7 years or till date of execution of death sentence, whichever is earlier and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 only, and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year or till date of execution of death sentence, whichever is earlier for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The convicts have preferred an appeal being CRA No. 138 of 2020 against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. The death reference and the appeal of the convicts have been heard analogously.

5. On December 14, 2008, police received information from prosecution witness (PW) 3 that he saw 2 legs of a child which came out of a bag lying beside the water of the banks of a canal. On the basis of such information, police had reached the place and found a child of about 1 ½ years with the mouth of the child being tied with a napkin. Police had recorded the statement of PW 3. On the basis of the statement of PW 3, police had started Ultadanga Police Station FIR No. 302 dated December 14, 2008 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. On the same date, that is, December 14, 2018, PW 25 had lodged a written complaint with Chanditala police station stating that, he saw a sack lying on the wetland and some portion of the sack was wet in blood. On the basis of the written complaint of PW 25, Chanditala police station had registered Chanditala Police Station FIR No. 166/08 dated December 14, 2008 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. Chanditala FIR No. 166/08 had been tagged with Ultadanga Police Station FIR No. 302 dated December 14, 2008 in terms of an order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah.

8. Police had filed a charge sheet being No. 58/09 dated March 13, 2009 against the two convicts under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Court had framed charges under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the two convicts to which, they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. At the trial, the case of the prosecution had been that the convicts on December 14, 2008 at about 7 A.M at 63, Suren Sarkar Road, Kolkata 700010 murdered the child and wife of PW 4 and caused the bodied of the victims to disappear and gave false evidence knowing the same to be false.

10. At the trial, prosecution had examined 46 witnesses and relied upon various documentary and material exhibits. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution,