IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi DEATH REFERENCE NO. 06 OF 2023 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL … APPELLANT Vs.

SUNIL DAS@ HARI CHARAN DAS @ HARI BABA @ SWARUP ROY @ GURUDEV … RESPONDENT With CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 191 OF 2024 CRAN 1 of 2024 SUNIL DAS@ HARI CHARAN DAS @ HARI BABA @ SWARUP ROY @ GURUDEV … APPELLANT Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL … RESPONDENT For the Appellant : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Krishan Ray, Adv.

Mr. Souvik Das, Adv.

Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Akbar Laskar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.

Mrs. Amita Gaur, Ld. Sr. Govt. Adv.

Ms. Rajnandini Das, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 20.08.2025 Judgment on : 18.09.2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:-

1. The Death Reference and the appeal have emanated out of the impugned judgment of conviction dated August 28, 2023 and the order of sentence dated August 29, 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat, Birbhum, South 24-Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 06 (February) of 2021 arising out of Sessions Case No. 72 of 2020.

2. By the impugned judgment, the convict was found guilty and was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 376/201/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the convict was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The convict was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The convict was also sentenced to death penalty and a fine of ₹20,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused Kakali Patra @ Guruma was however, found not guilty of the charges and was acquitted by the learned trial Court.

3. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct ocular evidence in support of the case of prosecution to establish the offences of rape and murder. It was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the chain of circumstance so closely knit to point out the guilt of the appellant only, to the exclusion of anyone else. Referring to evidence of PW 34, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the incident allegedly occurred on May 17, 2020 and it was reported to the police on May 18, 2020 whereas PW34 claimed to have conducted inquest over the dead bodies on May 17, 2020 itself. According to learned advocate, such facts lead to material contradiction as to how inquest was conducted over the dead bodies even before the incident was reported to the police.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant also pointed out that initially, in the First Information Report, allegation were against the husband of the deceased namely Milon Mondal. He was arrested in connection with the case and was in custody for a considerable period. All of a sudden, the allegations were turned towards the present appellant and the prosecution has offered no explanation in this regard.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted, in reference to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more specifically, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 that there were admitted material contradictions in the testimony of such witnesses vis-à-vis their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so far as it related to the transaction of money between the appellant and the victim, the performance of the rituals of ‘Jogya’ as well as the conduct of the appellant. The identification of the a