Supreme Court of India
Gourab Mondal @ Shanu vs State Of West Bengal on 18 February, 2026
2026 INSC 184
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.20547/2025)
GOURAB MONDAL @ SHANU & ANOTHER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein have impugned the final order
and judgment dated 31.01.2023 passed in CRA No.167 of 2020
by the High Court at Calcutta, by which it commuted the
award of death penalty to life imprisonment, however
without the possibility of remission till the end of the
appellants’ natural lives.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2014 at
Signature Not Verified
NEETU SACHDEVA about 3:00 p.m., the appellants contacted the deceased
Digitally signed by
Date: 2026.02.24
16:37:28 IST
Reason:
victim’s father, demanding ransom in exchange for the
1
victim’s return. The next day, i.e. on 14.12.2014, the
police arrested three persons including the appellants
herein and one juvenile. Based on their statements, the
police recovered the victim’s dead body from the bank of
the river Ganga, where it had been buried in a gunny bag.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under
Sections 363, 364A, 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) read with Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short, “POCSO Act”). The juvenile accused was sent to the
Juvenile Justice Board, Hooghly at Serampore but the
appellants herein faced trial before the Sessions Court in
accordance with law. Charges were later altered to include
common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.
4. The Sessions Court in S.T. (Spl.) No.26/15 on
22.10.2020 held that the appellants herein had kidnapped
the deceased-victim, raped and murdered her in furtherance
of their common intention and attempted to destroy
evidence by concealing the body. Accordingly, appellants
were found guilty under Sections 363/34, 364/34,
376(2)(i), 302/34, and 201 of the IPC read with Section 6
of the POCSO Act and sentenced them to death penalty.
2
5. Later, the Division Bench of the High Court vide the
impugned judgment commuted the award of death penalty to
life imprisonment, however without the possibility of
remission till the end of their natural lives. It is
pertinent to mention that on the date of the crime,
appellant No.1 was aged 22 years and appellant No.2 was
aged 19 years.
6. Notice was issued in this matter to the
respondent/State only insofar as the quantum of sentence
to be imposed on the appellants herein.
7. By way of the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, the
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in CRA
No.167/2020, while commuting death penalty to life
imprisonment, also noted in Paragraph 105 that life
imprisonment ought to be without the possibility of
remission till the end of the appellant’s natural life.
For ease of reference, paragraph 105 of the impugned
judgment is extracted as under:
“In view of the State having failed to place
any material to establish that the appellants
cannot be reformed and are beyond scope of
rehabilitation, the award of death penalty is
commuted to one of life imprisonment. Keeping
in view the brutality of the offence committed,
it would be appropriate that, the appellants be3
sentenced to life imprisonment without the
possibility of remission till the end of their
natural life.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, no
doubt, the High Court granted relief from death penalty;
however, it was still harsh in imposing the sentence of
life imprisonment inasmuch as it is without the
possibility of remission till the end of the appellant’s
natural life. That there are two disadvantages to the
appellants in this sentence inasmuch as firstly, the life
imprisonment is not for a fixed term but till the end of
the natural life of the appellants; and secondly, the
relief of possibility of remission is also taken away. In
the circumstances, it was contended that the High Court
was not justified in imposing a double hardship on the
appellants herein. It was contended that having regard to
the judgments of this Court in the case of Union of India
vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016)7 SCC 1 and Sukhdev
Yadav alia Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), (2025)
SCC OnLine SC 1671, this Court may modify the sentence
imposed on the appellants either by granting the
possibility of remission to them or by granting a fixed
term sentence as has been done in certain decisions of
this Court.
4
9. Ms. Shraddha Chirania, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of learned standing counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that despite the brutality of
the crime, the High Court has already granted relief to
the appellants herein by commuting the death penalty to
life imprisonment. The High Court taking note of the
manner in which the crime was committed by the appellants
herein, who were in their early twenties, was justified in
holding that the life imprisonment would be without the
possibility of remission till the end of their natural
life. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.
10. By way of response, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appellants herein were in their early
twenties when the crime was committed. They have already
completed over eleven years of incarceration. They have a
long life to lead and if the relief of remission is also
taken away and they will be forced into completing their
life in jail. Then, the possibility of reformation is
given a go-bye. The right to remission is a constitutional
right as well as a statutory right. Therefore, the High
Court ought not to have taken away the possibility of
remission till the remainder of their natural life. In the
5
circumstances, this Court may modify the sentence of life
imprisonment to at least a fixed term of imprisonment so
that the appellants could have an opportunity of reform
and re-integrate into the society.
11. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar.
We have also noted the judgments of this Court in various
situations and having regard to the nature of crime, we
find that in the instant case, interest of justice would
be served by modifying the sentence imposed on the
appellants herein to life imprisonment, i.e., for a period
of twenty years without remission.
The Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 18, 2026
6
