Rarest-of-Rare Recalibrated: Calcutta High Court commutes death penalty to “life without remission for 40 years” and overturns rape conviction for want of medical corroboration

Introduction

In State of West Bengal v. Sunil Das @ Hari Charan Das @ Hari Baba @ Swarup Roy @ Gurudev, Death Reference No. 06 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 191 of 2024 (Calcutta High Court, 18 September 2025), a Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi reviewed a death sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), awarding death for murder under Section 302, life for rape under Section 376, and 7 years under Section 201.

The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence: the appellant was a self-styled “Sadhubaba/Gurubaba” who allegedly extracted money from the victim family on the promise of curing the teenage daughter’s post-burn scars through rituals (Joggo/Hom). On the crucial night, he is said to have administered sedative-laced “prasad,” separated the family members, and thereafter murdered the mother (F1) and the 17-year-old daughter (F2), while spiriting away the husband (PW15) on an early-morning circuit of temples under the pretext of collecting ritual soil/flowers. The defence highlighted inconsistencies, the absence of direct ocular testimony, contest over voluntariness of statements, and lack of forensic proof of rape.

The High Court affirmed the conviction for murder (Section 302) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201), but set aside the rape conviction (Section 376) for want of medical support and reliable corroboration. Critically, the Court commuted the death sentence to a special-category life sentence—imprisonment for life without remission for a period of 40 years from the date of arrest—after ordering and considering psychological and socio-economic assessments that did not foreclose the possibility of reform.

Summary of the Judgment

Conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence) upheld.
Conviction under Section 376 IPC (rape) set aside due to lack of medical or other reliable corroboration.
Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 40 years from the date of arrest, considering mitigation and societal protection needs.
Co-accused (Kakali Patra @ Guruma) stood acquitted by the trial court; that acquittal remains undisturbed.
Set-off of pre-trial detention directed under Section 428 CrPC.

Key Facts and Evidentiary Matrix

The deceased mother (F1) and daughter (F2) were found in their home under suspicious circumstances—hands and legs tied, mouths gagged; F1 had multiple incised wounds; F2 had ligature marks and abrasions. Autopsy evidence (PW28) concluded both deaths were homicidal, caused by asphyxia due to gagging; F2 also showed signs of ligature strangulation.

The husband (PW15) testified extensively: the appellant cultivated trust as a faith healer, demanded Rs. 1.61 lakh for rituals, received Rs. 83–84k in installments, performed a night ritual, administered cashew-paste “prasad,” separated sleeping arrangements, and took PW15 away at dawn on a scooty under ritual pretexts. Several neighbors and associates (PWs 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18) corroborated critical links—threats over refund, last-seen circumstances, presence at the house near the time of death, the appellant’s orchestrated movements with PW15, and later “reconstruction of scene” describing method and sequence.

Investigative steps included recoveries on the appellant’s leading statements: a sharp cutting weapon (“bonti”), unused strips of cetirizine and alzolam (alleged sedatives mixed with the “prasad”), and multiple mobile phones left with relatives. A videograph of the scene reconstruction (by PW9) was seized and introduced. The autopsy was conducted under Unnatural Death (UD) cases registered on 17 May 2020, explaining the inquest preceding the FIR on 18 May 2020.

Analysis

1) Circumstantial Evidence and the Chain of Guilt

The Court’s conviction for murder and Section 201 rests on a robust chain:

Established motive and prior conduct: the appellant’s monetary demands for ritual “cure,” failure to deliver results, and threats when refund was sought (PWs 6, 7, 15, 19, 20).
Presence and proximity: visits just before the murders; entry into the house at night with an associate; “last seen” circumstances including the appellant leaving with PW15 at dawn (PWs 6, 7, 10, 15).
Method: the appellant’s directions to segregate rooms, prepare cashew paste, the ingestion of “prasad,” and PW15’s induced unconsciousness aligning with the sedative narrative (PWs 11–15; recoveries via PWs 33, 9).
Homicidal injuries: medical findings of gagging/asphyxia and incised wounds (PW28), consistent with the modus explained during scene reconstruction.
Post-offence conduct: removal of mobile phones, deceptive calls as “Swarupbaba," and efforts to divert PW15 and delay discovery (PWs 11, 18, 22–24, 33).
Recoveries: the “bonti,” unused sedative strips, and articles used in the ritual/ingestion, all on leading statements (PWs 33; Exhibits 9/3, 10/3, 11/4, 24, 26).

The defence’s contention about a “timing contradiction” (inquest on 17 May versus FIR on 18 May) did not fracture the chain: the autopsy was carried out under two UD cases dated 17 May 2020, which is lawful under Section 174 CrPC and independent of a subsequent FIR. The Court, therefore, accepted the homicide narrative as cogent.

2) Treatment of Confessions, Scene Reconstruction, and Section 27 Evidence

Two distinct species of statements appear in the record:

Confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC recorded by Magistrates (PWs 27, 32), with the Court noting formal compliance and voluntariness.
Statements to police culminating in scene reconstruction and discoveries. While a confession to police is not admissible substantively, the Court relied on:
- Demonstrations during reconstruction, corroborated by multiple independent witnesses (PWs 11–14), and
- Discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (weapon, sedative strips, and other items), which are admissible to the extent they lead to recovery.

The Bench did not convict on confession alone; rather, it treated the reconstruction and Section 27 recoveries as links that fit with medical findings, last-seen evidence, and post-offence conduct. That approach respects the limited admissibility of police-led disclosures while allowing corroborative use of video-documented reconstructions and independent witness testimony.

3) Medical Evidence: Cause and Manner of Death

The autopsy surgeon (PW28) found:

F1: at least 16 injuries, including 11 incised wounds, gagging material in the mouth, ligature around the neck, and features consistent with asphyxia; opinion—homicidal asphyxia due to gagging.
F2: ligature mark around the neck, gagging material, abrasions; opinion—homicidal asphyxia due to gagging and ligature strangulation.

These findings dovetail with the prosecution’s account that the appellant incapacitated the victims and then used gagging/ligature, with a sharp cutting implement contributing to F1’s injuries. The Court noted that the presence of multiple incised wounds on F1 supports the use of a sharp-edged instrument like the recovered “bonti,” even if the immediate cause of death was asphyxia.

4) Why the Rape Conviction Failed

The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC. The High Court reversed that conviction for two principal reasons:

Medical evidence did not reveal injuries on the private parts or other indicators supporting sexual assault; the noted injuries were largely anterior and non-genital for F2.
No satisfactory corroboration (forensic or otherwise) tied the appellant to sexual assault. The allegation surfaced mainly through reconstruction narratives and hearsay strands, without the kind of reliable corroboration needed when the prosecutrix is deceased and direct testimony is unavailable.

The Bench reaffirmed that criminal convictions—especially for offences like rape—must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a case lacking medical/forensic linkage and credible corroboration, Section 376 could not be sustained.

5) Sentencing: From Death to Special-Category Life without Remission for 40 Years

On sentence, the Court carefully canvassed the “rarest-of-rare” framework. It called for and considered:

Psychological evaluation: no diagnosable mental illness, psychiatric condition, or intellectual disability.
Socio-economic assessment: impoverished background, lack of care in adolescence, no recorded criminal antecedents (save for a prior case in which he was acquitted), good conduct in correctional home.
Age: about 45 years.

Though the crime was heinous—two murders, exploitation of religious trust, and manipulation of a vulnerable family—the State placed no compelling material to prove the appellant is “beyond reformation.” The Bench therefore commuted the death sentence but, balancing societal protection, imposed a special-category sentence: life imprisonment without remission for 40 years from the date of arrest. The Court expressly noted a pattern of extracting money as a “Gurubaba,” supported by witness accounts and a prior similar allegation (even if not resulting in conviction), as part of its assessment of societal risk and desert.

This approach is consonant with the Supreme Court’s sentencing architecture permitting courts, in appropriate cases where death is unwarranted but premature remission is unjustified, to prescribe a fixed non-remittable period of incarceration longer than 14 years. Such directions operate within the judicial domain and are understood to be subject to constitutional clemency under Articles 72 and 161.

6) Section 201 IPC: Causing Disappearance of Evidence

The Section 201 conviction stands on multiple acts designed to obliterate/suppress evidence and misdirect the investigation: cleaning blood stains, binding and gagging, removing or disposing items (including medicine strips and mobile phones), making deceptive calls in the name of “Swarupbaba,” and orchestrating the husband’s absence from the scene during the critical window. These acts align with the guilt narrative and are distinct from the homicidal acts substantiating Section 302.

7) Precedential Landscape and How the Bench’s Reasoning Aligns

While the Bench did not name specific authorities, its reasoning tracks well-settled Supreme Court doctrine. The key reference points include:

Capital sentencing thresholds: The “rarest of rare” doctrine and the balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors as formulated and applied in leading cases, requiring courts to consider individual circumstances, age, antecedents, possibility of reform, and the manner of the crime before awarding the extreme penalty.
Special category sentences: The Court’s choice of “life without remission for 40 years” echoes the Supreme Court’s recognition that where death is inappropriate but ordinary life imprisonment (subject to statutory remission) is inadequate to reflect culpability or protect society, courts may stipulate a non-remittable minimum term.
Circumstantial evidence standard: The chain must be complete and point to the accused’s guilt to the exclusion of any reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the Bench’s analysis of motive, opportunity, last seen, medical consistency, recoveries, and post-offence conduct exemplifies this holistic test.
Last-seen and Section 106 Evidence Act: When a crucial fact lies especially within the knowledge of the accused (e.g., proximity in time and place to the crime), a failure to explain can permit an adverse inference, provided the prosecution has first established a foundational chain of circumstances—a theme reflected in the State’s submissions and the Court’s acceptance of the chain.
Confessions and reconstruction: Police-obtained confessions are inadmissible substantively; but discovery of material objects on the basis of information received (Section 27) is admissible; reconstructions can corroborate if independently witnessed and videographed; Magistrate-recorded confessions under Section 164 CrPC are admissible subject to voluntariness. The Bench’s evidentiary use respects these boundaries.
Sexual offences proof: While a conviction for rape can rest on the sole testimony of a credible prosecutrix, where she is deceased and there is no medical/forensic support or other reliable corroboration, courts proceed with caution; here, the High Court required more than reconstruction and hearsay to sustain Section 376.

Read in this light, the judgment is a textbook application of settled principles, even as it contributes an important regional articulation of special-category sentencing calibrated to the facts at hand.

Impact and Implications

A. Death Penalty Jurisprudence and Sentencing Practice

Reinforces the necessity of a separate, evidence-informed sentencing inquiry—including psychological and socio-economic assessments—before sustaining a death sentence.
Affirms the availability of “life without remission for a fixed term” as an intermediate sentencing tool where death is unwarranted but early release would be unjust or unsafe.
Signals to trial courts that the mere gravity of a crime does not suffice for death; the possibility of reform must be meaningfully assessed and, if not foreclosed, death should give way to a calibrated life term.

B. Evidentiary Standards in Circumstantial Cases

Endorses careful use of “last seen,” Section 106 inferences, and post-offence conduct, but only as part of a complete chain corroborated by medical findings and lawful recoveries.
Validates video-documented scene reconstruction as corroborative when witnessed and linked with Section 27 discoveries; discourages overreliance on bare “confessional” narratives.
Highlights the need for timely forensic work; although the sedative hypothesis was not forensically nailed, the broader chain sufficed for murder, but the absence of scientific corroboration contributed to setting aside the rape conviction.

C. Sexual Offence Charges in Homicide Contexts

Underscores that, where the prosecutrix cannot testify, medical and forensic indicia assume heightened importance; without them, a 376 conviction is vulnerable.
Encourages investigators to secure biological samples, toxicology, and digital evidence to bridge the evidentiary gap in mixed homicide-sexual assault cases.

D. Societal Protection and “Faith-Healer” Exploitation

The judgment acknowledges patterns of exploitation by self-styled gurus and treats that as a sentencing consideration, while still insisting on proof for the specific crime.
The long non-remittable term reflects a preventive rationale tailored to such predatory conduct.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rarest of Rare: A judicial test used to decide if death penalty is justified. It requires that (a) the crime’s circumstances are exceptionally heinous, and (b) alternative punishment (life) would be wholly inadequate. Courts must weigh aggravating (e.g., brutality, victim profile) against mitigating (e.g., age, background, remorse, reform prospects) factors.
Special-Category Life Sentence: A court-ordered life term specifying a fixed non-remittable period (here, 40 years). It limits statutory remission but does not affect constitutional clemency powers of the President/Governor.
Section 106 Evidence Act: If a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person (e.g., being last with the victims), that person is expected to explain it. An adverse inference can arise if they do not, but only after the prosecution lays a strong circumstantial foundation.
Section 27 Evidence Act: Even though police confessions are inadmissible, any fact discovered because of information given by the accused in police custody (like a weapon’s location) is admissible to that extent.
Section 161 vs. 164 CrPC: Section 161 statements are made to police and are not substantive evidence (used mainly for contradiction). Section 164 statements are recorded by a Magistrate (including confessions) and can be substantive if voluntary and reliable.
Scene Reconstruction: A re-enactment of the alleged crime sequence, typically with the accused’s participation, to verify consistency with the physical scene; it is corroborative, not conclusive, and must be supported by other lawful evidence.
Section 201 IPC: Penalizes acts intended to cause disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender.
Section 428 CrPC Set-off: The period already spent in detention during investigation or trial is credited against the final sentence.
UD Case and Inquest: Police can hold an inquest under Section 174 CrPC upon learning of an unnatural death even before an FIR is registered; post-mortem under a UD number is lawful.

Observations on Specific Controversies Raised

Inquest Before FIR: Not a fatal contradiction; the autopsy under UD cases dated 17 May 2020 lawfully preceded the formal FIR on 18 May 2020.
Initial Suspicion Against Husband: The prosecution later sent up the appellant based on emergent material; the High Court found the cumulative evidence against the appellant compelling.
Forensic Gaps: While sedative use was not scientifically proved, the Court did not treat that gap as determinative for murder, given the overwhelming consistency of other evidence. Conversely, the lack of medical/forensic support proved fatal to the 376 charge.
Reliance on Prior Allegations: The Court used similar-allegation evidence (including an earlier case ending in acquittal) cautiously at sentencing, not for guilt—signalling that non-conviction conduct can inform risk assessment but should be weighed with care.

Conclusion: Significance and Takeaways

Convictions aligned with the evidence: The High Court carefully separated what the record could prove (murder and Section 201) from what it could not (rape), modelling principled appellate scrutiny in a high-stakes, circumstantial case.
Sentencing prudence with societal protection: By commuting death yet imposing a 40-year non-remittable term, the Court balanced reformation prospects against the need to protect the public from predatory exploitation masquerading as faith healing.
Procedural fairness in capital cases: The judgment underscores the necessity of mitigation material (psychological and socio-economic) before affirming a death sentence, consonant with contemporary constitutional sentencing norms.
Evidentiary discipline: The Court’s use of scene reconstruction, Section 27 recoveries, last-seen evidence, and medical findings illustrates how circumstantial matrices can meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard when carefully assembled—and how, conversely, a serious charge like rape must fall when essential corroboration is missing.
Operational guidance: Investigators are nudged to secure forensics early and comprehensively; trial courts are reminded to rigorously calibrate sentence after a full mitigation hearing; and appellate benches can deploy special-category life terms to eschew death while preventing premature release in egregious cases.

On balance, the decision contributes a clear and careful application of established doctrines to a difficult fact pattern, sharpening sentencing practice in the Calcutta High Court and offering a measured template for dealing with circumstantial capital cases that combine homicide with allegations of sexual assault and systematic exploitation.