The Central Government is the competent authority to direct an appeal against inadequacy of sentence when the investigation is conducted by a central agency, as per Section 418 of BNSS.

JUDGMENT :

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1. Two Criminal Appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated January 18, 2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sealdeh, South 24 Parganas, in Sessions Trial Case No. 1 (11) of 2024 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 177 of 2024 under Section 64/66/103(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023 as well as the corresponding order of Sentence dated January 20, 2025.

2. One of the appeals being GA No. 1 of 2025 has been filed at the behest of Government of West Bengal under Section 418(1) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the adequacy of the sentence passed against the convict seeking enhancement of punishment awarded to the convict.

3. Another appeal being GA 2 of 2025 has been filed at the behest of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Section 418(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, also seeking an order for enhancement of the punishment imposed upon the convict.

4. The incident took place on August 9, 2024. The victim was raped and murdered. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the victim, Tala Police Station Case No. 52 dated August 9, 2024 under Sections 64/66/103 (1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita was started following an Unnatural Death Case No. 861 dated August 9, 2024.

5. Tala Police Station took up investigation of the Case and later a Special Investigation Team was also formulated for such investigation. However, in pursuance of an order passed by this Court, on August 13, 2024, in connection with several Public Interest Litigation Writ Petitions being WPA (P) 335-339 of 2024, the investigation of the case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Subsequently, the CBI registered a fresh case being RC0482024S0010 dated August 13, 2024 and continued with the investigation.

6. On completion of investigation, CBI submitted charge sheet in the case. Accordingly, in consideration of evidence collected during such investigation, charges under Sections 64/66/103(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita were framed against the accused which were denied by him. The accused claimed to be tried for the aforesaid offences.

7. The accused stood trial and upon conclusion of such trial, was found guilty of the offences under Sections 64/66/103(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 5 months for the offence punishable under Section 64 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. He was further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 5 months for the offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. The convict was also convicted for Rigorous Imprisonment for remainder of natural life for the offence punishable under Section 66 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.

8. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the convict, the CBI which conducted the trial as prosecution as well as the State, both, have approached this Court seeking enhancement of the punishment so awarded to the convict at the trial. It was submitted on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation that at the time of hearing on the point of sentence, it had requested the learned trial Court to award maximum punishment i.e. punishment of death to the convict.

9. The Central Bureau of Investigation, rai