Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 636

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
The State Of Assam Represented By The Public Prosecutor, Assam – Appellant
Versus
Rishab Das Son Of Late Satish Ch. Das – Respondent
Death Sentence Ref. 2 of 2025 CRL.A(J) 185 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :PP, ASSAM, Mr. R R Kaushik, App, Assam Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. A ahmed, amicus curiae, Mr K Agarwal, Amicus Curiae

The death penalty is reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases. Sentencing must be both crime-centric and criminal-centric, requiring a comprehensive inquiry into mitigating factors and the possibility of reformation. Brutality alone is insufficient to justify capital punishment without evidence that the accused is beyond reform.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 351 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Sections 10, 23, 105, 109 - Murder - Conviction - Sentencing - Death penalty - Commutation to life imprisonment.

(B) Sentencing - Capital punishment - Principles for imposition - Requirement of "rarest of rare" case - Need for crime-centric and criminal-centric assessment - Burden on prosecution to prove accused is beyond reformation - Absence of material regarding psychological profile or institutional assessment - Mitigating factors - (Paras 72-90).

(C) Evidence - Ocular testimony - Corroboration by medical evidence - Recovery of weapons - Principle of facts within knowledge of accused - (Paras 35-66).

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his spouse and minor child using sharp-edged weapons. The trial court sentenced the accused to death, categorizing the incident as a "rarest of rare" case. The matter came before the appellate court for confirmation of the death sentence and consideration of the appeal against conviction.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court affirmed the conviction based on consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and recovery of incriminating weapons. However, it found the sentencing process deficient as the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors or assess the possibility of the accused's reformation.

Issues: Whether the imposition of the death penalty was justified under the "rarest of rare" doctrine and whether the trial court conducted a sufficient sentencing inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that brutality alone does not warrant the death penalty. A comprehensive sentencing inquiry, including the evaluation of the accused's potential for reform and mitigating circumstances, is mandatory. In the absence of evidence proving the accused is beyond reformation, the extreme penalty is disproportionate.

Result: Conviction affirmed; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

Table of Content
1. procedural overview of the case and prosecution background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. eyewitness testimonies and observations of events. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. scientific, forensic, and medical evidence regarding the crime. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. holistic assessment of ocular and circumstantial evidence. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. proving guilt through corroborating evidence and legal standards. (Para 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
6. balancing aggravating and mitigating factors for sentencing. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)
7. final order commuting death sentence to life imprisonment. (Para 97 , 98 , 99)

Judgment :

A.D.Choudhury, J.

1. The Death Sentence Ref. No. 2/2025 and Crl. A. (J) No. 185/2025 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

2. We have heard Mr K. Agrawal, learned Senior Adv./Amicus Curiae assisted by Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel, in Death Sentence Ref. No. 2/2025, Mr. Azad Ahmed, learned amicus curiae for the appellant in Crl. A. (J.) 185/2025 and for the respondent in Death Sentence Ref. No. 2/2025, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 14/2024, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and treating such a criminal act under the category of “rarest of the rare case”, sentenced him to death and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 13.10.2023, PW-2 Nitu Das of Palangdihati, along with her two daughters, Ankita Das (PW-3) and Mayuri Das (PW-4), paid a social visit to the house of Binita Das (deceased victim). On the same day, at about 05:00 pm, when PW-2 and her two daughters were about to return after the visit, they noticed that the accused had locked the main gate of the compound, and when the victim Binita asked the accused to unlock the main gate, the accused attacked her with an axe and a dao. On witnessing the attack, Hiya Das (the other deceased victim), daughter of the accused, tried to save her mother, Binita, but the accused attacked her too with the axe and dao, and as a result, both Binita and Hiya died on the spot.

5. PW-5 informed the police over the telephone regarding the incident immediately; accordingly, Barpeta P.S. case GDE No. 379/2023 was registered, and police visited the place of occurrence, made certain seizures, arrested the accused and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination on 13.10.2023 itself.

6. PW-1, Pulak Kr. Das, brother of the deceased Binita Das, lodged the FIR on 14.10.2023. Accordingly, Barpeta P.S. Case No. 504/2023 was registered under Sections 120B/302 IPC. Investigation continued. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 302 of the IPC.

7. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, who framed a charge under Section 302 IPC and read it over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty; accordingly, the trial proceeded.

8. During the Trial, to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, exhibited 18 documents and 4 pieces of material evidence. The accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. The accused denied the allegation; however did not lead any defence evidence.

9. Thereafter, the impugned judgment and sentence were passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, convicting and sentencing the accused as detailed hereinabove.

10. For the sake of completeness, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is summarised below:

11. PW-1 Pulak Kumar Das, brother o