The Calcutta High Court while Commuting Death Sentence said that manner of crime although gruesome doesn’t come within the purview of rarest of rare cases.
The police had sought trial of the appellant on the contention that the appellant committed trespass in 2019 by entering into the house of the de facto complainant, sexually assaulted and caused injuries to the victim, the minor daughter of the de facto complainant. The police had also claimed that the appellant committed rape upon the minor and while committing such offence the appellant inflicted injury on her which caused her death. The police had also contended that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor, caused bodily injury to the sexual organ of the minor and also murdered the minor.
Advocate Arnab Chatterjee, led by Senior Advocate Sekhar Kr. Basu, as amicus curiae submitted that, the prosecution did not bring forth any eye witness to the incident at the trial.
Referring to the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses it was contended that, none of the prosecution witnesses had seen the appellant to either enter or exit the house of the victim.
It was further submitted that the prosecution did not bring on record any evidence to establish the complicity of the appellant in the incident.
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, there is one eye witness who saw the appellant enter into the house of the victim. There is another eyewitness who had seen the appellant exit the house of the victim at the material point of time.
He submitted that the fingerprint of the appellant was found in the place of occurrence. The appellant did not produce any material at the trial to explain the presence of his fingerprint at the place of occurrence.
The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice M D. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the prosecution having established the death of the victim to be homicidal in nature, and the victim to have suffered aggravated sexual assault it can be safely said that, the victim was raped and murdered.
It was further observed that the report submitted by the State shows that there are 13 criminal cases against the appellant pending at various stages. Out of the 13 criminal cases, 7 cases related to murder. Out of the 7 cases of murder, 1 involved rape and murder.
The court said that the victim had been raped and murdered. The manner in which the crime had been committed although gruesome cannot be said to come within the purview of rarest of rare cases.
It commuted the death sentence awarded against the appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for a period of 25 years from the date of his arrest in the police case, taking into account the age of the appellant, the age of the victim and the nature of the crime.
Case title: Kamrujjaman Sarkar @ Kama @ Kamrul Vs. State of West Bengal
Citation: DR 7 of 2020