Death Sentence Cannot Be the Default Penalty When Reformation Is Possible: Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case

“Extra-Judicial Confession, Corroborated by Medical Evidence, Forms Solid Basis for Conviction”: in a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court delivered a judgment of profound legal significance. Addressing the grim realities of a triple murder case, the Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the conviction of Promothesh Ghosal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but exercised judicial restraint in awarding the death penalty, commuting it to life imprisonment.

The Court categorically observed, “There is no material on record to suggest that the convict is beyond reformation,” reinforcing the enduring constitutional commitment to the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine.

The case revolved around the gruesome murder of the convict’s parents and married sister at their rented residence on the night of 8th November 2021. The next morning, relatives and neighbours discovered the dead bodies along with the convict, Promothesh Ghosal, who was lying in a bleeding condition. A prompt FIR was registered, followed by a police investigation culminating in the framing of charges under Section 302 IPC.

After a full-fledged trial where the prosecution presented 14 witnesses, including relatives, neighbours, medical personnel, and police officials, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly, convicted Ghosal and sentenced him to death, branding the offence as one falling under the “rarest of rare” category. The matter reached the High Court in the form of a death reference and appeal.

The case touched upon critical legal questions surrounding the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, investigative shortcomings, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.

The High Court methodically dissected each of these legal facets.

On the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, the Court was unequivocal: “There is no iota of contradictions between the extra-judicial confessions which the prosecution witnesses narrated in their respective testimonies,” observed the Division Bench, placing significant weight on the consistent depositions of witnesses like P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, and P.W.10.

The Court noted that these confessions were further corroborated by “medical and post-mortem reports which aligned seamlessly with the nature of injuries described by the convict himself while confessing to multiple persons.”

The Court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that the convict was found at the crime scene, injured and alive, amidst the dead bodies of his family members. The Bench remarked,

“The convict failed to discharge the onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act so far as the crime is concerned and his role with regard thereto.”

Addressing the defence’s challenge regarding lapses in investigation, including the failure to recover weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and absence of forensic examination, the High Court maintained,

“Such lapses did not dilute overwhelming direct and corroborative evidence proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.”

Thus, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was affirmed, as the prosecution “overwhelmingly established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the convict in murdering his parents and his sister.”

Judicial Shift on Sentencing: Reformation Over Retribution

However, the High Court adopted a reformative lens while reconsidering the death sentence. Drawing extensively from the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Manoj & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Court meticulously analyzed the potential for reformation.

In sharp contrast to the trial court, which had ruled that “the mitigating factors appeared minuscule and negligible before the aggravating factors,” the High Court found substantial mitigating circumstances.

In words that resonate with constitutional compassion, the Court observed,

“We are unable to arrive at a finding that the convict is beyond reformation… all other penalties apart from death penalty do not stand foreclosed.”

Age was a significant factor: “The incident occurred when the convict was 41 years of age… At the time of deposition under Section 313 CrPC, the convict recorded an age of 44 years.”

The Court acknowledged that the convict had no prior criminal record and was “known in the locality as a reputed private tutor of Mathematics,” emphasizing his positive societal role before the crime.

Critically, the Court found “no psychological or correctional record indicating that the convict was beyond reformation,” and further declared,

“In absence of any material to suggest the convict’s incorrigibility, the death sentence cannot be upheld.”

Orders and Directions of the Court:

The Calcutta High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment and directed that, “The period of detention already undergone by the appellant shall be set off against the substantive punishment in terms of the provisions contained in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Further procedural directions were issued, with the Court ordering,

“The Correctional Home will record the fact of commutation of death penalty to the sentence awarded by this judgment and order in respect of Promothesh Ghoshal, in their records.”

Finally, the Court concluded the judgment by affirming the conviction, modifying the sentence, and disposing of the death reference and appeal accordingly.

The judgment stands as a potent reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s evolving sentencing jurisprudence, favouring life imprisonment where genuine prospects of reformation exist. By meticulously evaluating both aggravating and mitigating factors, the Calcutta High Court reinforced the constitutional balance between justice and humanity.

In its profound articulation, the Court underscored,

“The sentence of death cannot be imposed merely because the crime is heinous. The convict must be shown to be beyond reformation, a threshold which the prosecution has failed to cross in this case.”

The decision sets a meaningful precedent for courts grappling with the fine balance between societal outrage and judicial responsibility.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2025