Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 462

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR, JJ.
Md. Abbas - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
D.R. No. 04 of 2024 With CRA (DB) 56 of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Subham Ghosh, Mr. Mayank Roy, Mr. Subhranil Barman
For the State : Ms. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP., Mr. Sourav Ganguly
For the de facto Complainant : Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Ms. Sunayana Parveen, Ms. Riya Agarwal, Mr. Bappaditya Roy, Mr. Mantu Mondal

The court held that the death penalty is inappropriate for a first-time offender without prior convictions; life imprisonment is more suitable given mitigating circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 363, and 366 - Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act - Section 6 - Criminal conviction - Appellant convicted for murder of minor; awarded death penalty for murder and rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and sexual assault; sentences to run concurrently. (Paras 1 and 96)

(B) Conviction standards - The absence of a Test Identification Parade is not fatal if identification is made shortly after the crime. (Paras 60)

(C) Mitigating factors - The court found that the atrocious nature of the crime does not compel a death penalty if the defendant is a young first-time offender with no prior criminal history. (Paras 124 and 122)

Facts of the case:
The conviction arose from the abduction and murder of a 16-year-old girl who was assaulted by the appellant, supported by eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, including a Digital Ration Card found at the crime scene. (Paras 2, 28, and 37)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction, citing substantial evidence, but ruled the death penalty unwarranted due to the defendant’s youth, lack of prior offenses, and the brutal environment preceding the act. (Paras 124 and 126)

Issues: The court addressed if the severity of the crime justifies capital punishment, weighing social outrage against mitigating circumstances, including the lack of a criminal record and the defendant's background. (Paras 97, 102, and 108)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that while the crime was heinous, the absence of prior criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation warranted commutation from death to life imprisonment. (Paras 123, 124, and 126)

Result: The death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 20 years. (Paras 125 and 126)

Table of Content
1. conviction under ipc and pocso act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. procedural irregularities in investigation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22)
3. credibility of evidentiary chain confirmed (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. circumstantial evidence validity (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. death sentence commutation discussions (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124)
6. final judgment and sentence modification (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129)

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeal and death reference arise out of the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), for both of which death sentence was awarded, under Section 363 of the IPC, for which rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months was awarded, and under Section 366 of the IPC, for which ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, was handed out. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case are that the victim girl, who was about sixteen years of age and a school student at the time of her death, had gone to school on August 21, 2023. On her way back home, the appellant kidnapped the diseased, who was immature and a late learner, on his bicycle, took her to a lonely place at Motajote, on the land of one Samul Bagh's family, where he raped and murdered her brutally. According to the prosecution case, the appellant also tried to mutilate her face and head, apparently in a bid to foil the recognition of the victim.

3. PW 21 and ASI of police, who was posted at the Lexicon More on the said date from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., saw the appellant carrying the victim girl on his bicycle, taking her towards the place of occurrence (PO) between 4.30 and 4.45 p.m, when the girl was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle in her school uniform.

4. Subsequently, PWs 12 and 13, a minor girl Neha Modak and her aunt Minati Modak respectively, upon hearing certain sounds, went behind their residence and found the appellant at the PO, with the victim girl dead. Upon seeing them, the appellant escaped from the spot on his bicycle, after trying to cover his face with a handkerchief.

5. The appellant was arrested the very same night, that is, on August 22, 2023, at about 1.30 a.m. from his home, and produced before the learned ACJM at Siliguri.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that there was no inquest and preceding investigation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Learned counsel argues that, the mode, method and ultimate report prepared under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code was completely unlawful and manufactured. One ASI Prabir Roy (PW17) of the Matigara police station prepared an investigation report without intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest.

7. It is submitted that no inquest, as mandated under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C, forms part of the investigation, which vitiates the investigation.

8. Secondly, it is argued by the appellant that the purported chain of events leading to the offence was not established by the prosecution. It is argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was done. The offence occurred on August 21, 2023, whereas the appellant was identified on dock by the alleged eyewitnesses only on August 21, 2023, the dates being sparsely situated. It is argued that the lack of TIP vitiates the entire prosecution case.

9. In support of such contention, learned counsel cites Kannan vs. State of Kerala reported at (1979) 3 SCC 319 , P. Sasikumar vs. The State reported at (2024) SCC OnL