FAGUN MANDI @ PUI AND ANR. V. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR CRA (DB) 176 OF 2024:

DATE: 23/07/2025

COURT: High Court of Culcutta

BENCH: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

FACTS:

The Trial Judge had convicted the Appellants under Sections 376, 302, 34, 201, 34, 363, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The victim’s father had lodged a written complaint with the local police stating that her daughter went missing on November 4, 2021, at about 10:00 a.m. from his house. He alleged that the Appellant No. 1 had hidden the victim in some secret place. The local shop owner stated that the said Appellant purchased one packet of biri and a chocolate from his shop. Subsequently, the father of the victim had come to his shop and asked him about the victim whereupon, he told him that the victim was with the said Appellant. The victim’s uncle stated that the Appellant took the victim towards the paddy field and thereafter, the police recovered the victim in dead condition. His claim with regard to the Appellants raping and murdering the victim was based on hearsay. Allegedly, the victim was assaulted with a bamboo stick which was inserted in the private parts. The Single Judge awarded death penalty to the Appellants and hence, the case was before the High Court.

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the death penalty awarded to the appellants for the brutal kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a 5-year-old girl should be confirmed or commuted. The Court also had to determine whether the possibility of reformation of the convicts had been conclusively ruled out and whether life imprisonment without remission could be a suitable alternative to the death penalty in this case.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court commuted the death sentences imposed by the Trial Court and instead awarded life imprisonment to both appellants without the possibility of remission for 60 years from the date of the offence. It directed that their period of detention already undergone would be set off against the sentence and instructed the appropriate authorities to update official records and issue modified warrants accordingly.

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which clarified that the death penalty should only be imposed when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The Court found that in this case, the possibility of reformation of the convicts had not been ruled out. Reports submitted by the State indicated that one appellant showed signs of positive behavioural change, while the other maintained good conduct in the correctional facility. There was no submission from the State indicating that rehabilitation was impossible. As such, the Court concluded that mitigating factors were present and not entirely outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

However, considering the extreme brutality of the crime, involving the sexual assault and murder of a minor, and the deliberate attempt to conceal the offence, the Court held that a sentence of simple life imprisonment would be inadequate. Despite acknowledging potential for reformation, it emphasized the gravity of the crime and the need to protect societal interests. Consequently, it imposed a punishment that balanced both objectives: life imprisonment for 60 years without remission. This approach allowed the Court to ensure proportionality in sentencing, maintain public confidence in the justice system, and adhere to constitutional principles against arbitrary or excessive punishment.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the High Court was tasked with reviewing the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court on two appellants convicted of the heinous kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a 5-year-old girl. The brutality of the crime, including the use of a bamboo stick in the sexual assault and the subsequent murder and concealment of the body, shocked the judicial conscience. However, applying the legal standards laid down in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court emphasized that the death penalty is constitutionally permissible only when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. After examining the conduct and rehabilitation potential of the convicts, the Court found that the possibility of their reformation had not been conclusively negated. Reports from the State itself indicated positive behavioural signs and no assertion that the convicts were beyond redemption.

Balancing the extreme severity of the crime with the principles of proportionality and the possibility of reform, the Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission for 60 years. This sentence served as a middle path, preserving the gravity of the punishment while not violating constitutional safeguards against the arbitrary use of capital punishment. The judgment reflects a maturing penal philosophy that prioritizes fairness, reformative justice, and individualized sentencing over retribution. It underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that even in the most disturbing cases, punishment must be measured, constitutionally sound, and informed by evidence of the offender’s capacity for change.