Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/25 vs Rishab Das on 7 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/25
GAHC010242322025
2026:GAU-AS:5107-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Death Sentence Ref./2/2025
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
VERSUS
RISHAB DAS
SON OF LATE SATISH CH. DAS, GANDHINAGAR WARD NO. 16, BARPETA
Advocate for the Petitioner : PP, ASSAM, MR. R R KAUSHIK, APP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A AHMED, AMICUS CURIAE, MR K AGARWAL, AMICUS
CURIAE
Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/185/2025
RISHAB DAS
SON OF LATE SATISH CH. DAS
GANDHINAGAR WARD NO. 16
BARPETA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Page No.# 2/25
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : X
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant/petitioner :Mr. K. Gogoi, learned PP &,
:Ms. N.N. Sharma, Adv. in
Death Sen. Ref. No. 2/2025
:Ms. P. Neog, Adv.&
:Mr. A. Ahmed, Adv in
Crl.(J) No. 185/2025.
For the Respondent :Mr. K.Gogoi, PP &
:Ms. N. N. Sharma, Adv. in Crl. A. (J)
No. 185/2025
:Ms. P. Neog, Adv. &,
:Mr. A. Ahmed, Adv. in Death Sen. Ref.
No.2/2025
Amicus Curiae : Mr. K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate/Amicus
Curiae :Mr. Azad Ahmed, Amicus
Curiae.
Date on which Judgment is
Page No.# 3/25
Reserved : 26.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment : 07.04.2026
Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part of the
Judgement : NA.
Whether the full Judgment has
been pronounced : Yes.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(A.D.Choudhury, J)
1. The Death Sentence Ref. No. 2/2025 and Crl. A. (J) No. 185/2025 have been
heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and
Order.
2. We have heard Mr K. Agrawal, learned Senior Adv./Amicus Curiae assisted by
Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel, in Death Sentence Ref. No. 2/2025, Mr. Azad
Ahmed, learned amicus curiae for the appellant in Crl. A. (J.) 185/2025 and for
the respondent in Death Sentence Ref. No. 2/2025, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
3. By the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2025 and order of sentence dated
22.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No.
14/2024, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and
treating such a criminal act under the category of “rarest of the rare case”,
sentenced him to death and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
Page No.# 4/25
4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 13.10.2023, PW-2 Nitu Das of
Palangdihati, along with her two daughters, Ankita Das (PW-3) and Mayuri Das
(PW-4), paid a social visit to the house of Binita Das (deceased victim). On the
same day, at about 05:00 pm, when PW-2 and her two daughters were about
to return after the visit, they noticed that the accused had locked the main
gate of the compound, and when the victim Binita asked the accused to
unlock the main gate, the accused attacked her with an axe and a dao. On
witnessing the attack, Hiya Das (the other deceased victim), daughter of the
accused, tried to save her mother, Binita, but the accused attacked her too
with the axe and dao, and as a result, both Binita and Hiya died on the spot.
5. PW-5 informed the police over the telephone regarding the incident
immediately; accordingly, Barpeta P.S. case GDE No. 379/2023 was registered,
and police visited the place of occurrence, made certain seizures, arrested the
accused and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination on 13.10.2023
itself.
6. PW-1, Pulak Kr. Das, brother of the deceased Binita Das, lodged the FIR on
14.10.2023. Accordingly, Barpeta P.S. Case No. 504/2023 was registered under
Sections 120B/302 IPC. Investigation continued. Upon completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 302 of the IPC.
7. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge,
Barpeta, who framed a charge under Section 302 IPC and read it over to the
accused, who pleaded not guilty; accordingly, the trial proceeded.
8. During the Trial, to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as
many as 22 witnesses, exhibited 18 documents and 4 pieces of material
evidence. The accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. The
accused denied the allegation; however did not lead any defence evidence.
9. Thereafter, the impugned judgment and sentence were passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, convicting and sentencing the accused as
detailed hereinabove.
Page No.# 5/25
10. For the sake of completeness, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is
summarised below:
11. PW-1 Pulak Kumar Das, brother of the deceased Binita & informant of the case,
deposed that on the day of the incident, he received a call from one Ankita
Das informing him that his younger sister Binita Das and niece Hiya Das were
killed by the accused Rishab Das. Arriving the house of accused, he found
dead bodies of them lying on the ‘Varanda’ of the house of the accused and
also noticed Ankita (PW-3) and Mayuri (PW-4) being examined by police, from
whom, he came to know that on that day, they found the gate of the
compound of accused was under lock and key and that when Binita asked the
accused to unlock the gate, he brought one ‘dao’ and axe and applied blows
on Binita and Hiya leaving both of them died at the spot. He also stated that
Binita had told him that the mother and younger sister of the accused had
instigated the accused to kill Binita. He further stated that a divorce case was
pending between the accused and Binita at the time of the incident. Though
both resided in the same compound, they had separate kitchens. He proved
Ext. P-1 as FIR and Ext.P1(1) as his signature. In his presence, the concerned
Executive Magistrate visited the house of the accused and did an inquest over
the dead bodies. He also proved Ext. P2 & P3 as the inquest reports and Ext.
P2(1) & P3(1) as his signatures.
During the cross-examination, he testified that the accused had tortured his
sister and committed the crime. He denied that the accused is a mentally ill
person, and at that time, he was under treatment for mental illness.
12. PW-2 Nitu Das, an eyewitness deposed that on the day of the incident, at
around 03:00 PM, she visited the house of the victims with her two daughters,
namely, Ankita (PW-3) and Mayuri (PW-4) and they noticed that the gate of the
compound of Binita was under lock and key and that when Binita was ready to
break the lock of the gate with a hammer, the accused came running with a
‘dao’ and ‘axe’ and he applied the said weapons on the body of Binita.
Page No.# 6/25
Thereafter, the victim Hiya came and embarrassed her mother Binita, and then
the accused applied blows with ‘dao’ on her too. Both the victims died at the
spot. She also deposed that the mother and younger sister of the accused
were standing near the spot, but they did not resist the accused. Out of fear,
she, along with her two daughters, went inside one room and called the police,
and immediately, the police came and examined them. Her statement was
recorded by the police. She proved Ext. P4 as her statement recorded by the
concerned Magistrate, and she also proved her signature as Ext.
P4(1),P4(2),P4(3),P4(4),P4(5)& P4(6).
In Cross-examination, she testified that she did not know the family life of Binita
and the accused; the incident occurred near the gate of the compound of
the accused and that at the time of her examination by the Investigating
Officer, her daughters were not present. She denied that the accused is a
mental patient and is an insane person.
13. PW-3 Ankita Das, another eyewitness, deposed that, on 13.10.2023, she, along
with her mother (PW-2) and younger sister Mayuri (PW-4), visited the house of
her friend Hiya. When they were about to leave the house of the victims, they
noticed that the gate of the compound was locked. While Hiya’s mother,
Binita, was trying to break the gate’s lock with a hammer, the accused
approached Binita with a dao and inflicted several blows with it on her. In the
meantime, Hiya came and embarrassed her mother and then the accused
inflicted blows with a dao on Hiya too. In the compound, she noticed the
mother and the sister of the accused, who were present at the scene, but did
not resist the accused. Out of fear, her mother informed the police over the
phone. Thereafter, the police came and examined them. The police recorded
her statement. She proved Ext. P5 as her statement recorded before the
Magistrate and Ext. P5(1), Ext. P5(2) and Ext.P5(3) as her signatures.
In the cross-examination, she denied that the accused is a mentally ill person
and that at the time of the incident, he was under medical treatment for his
Page No.# 7/25
mental sickness.
14. PW-4 Mayuri Das, another eyewitness, deposed that on 13.10.2023, she, along
with her elder sister (PW-3) and mother (PW-2), visited the house of the victims.
On leaving the house of the victims, they found the gate of the compound was
locked. While Binita tried to open the lock by breaking it, the accused came
running and attacked Binita with a dao several times. Thereafter, the victim,
Hiya, came. She proved Ext. P6 as her statement recorded by the Magistrate
and Ext. P6(1), Ext. P6(2), Ext. P6(3) & Ext.6(4) as her signatures.
In cross-examination, she testified that she did not see that the mother and
sister of the accused were participating in the assault, which caused the death
of the victims and that she saw one Tarali (PW-10) inside the compound and
that she did not see the accused hitting Hiya with a dao.
15. PW-10 Tarali Das, an eyewitness, deposed that on 13.10.2023, she noticed the
accused putting a lock on the gate of his compound. At that time, a lady and
her two daughters were guests in the house of the accused. When Binita Das
asked who had put the lock on the gate, she answered that it was the
accused. The wife of the accused brought a hammer to break the lock open,
but in the meantime, the accused came running with a dao and applied a
blow to his wife. Out of fear, this witness entered her room and heard the cry of
victim Binita and her daughter Hiya. Later, on the arrival of the police, she
came out of her room and saw the blood-stained dead bodies of the victims.
The police got her statement recorded in the Court. She proved Ext. P10 as her
statement recorded in the Court and Ext. P10(1), Ext. P10(2) & Ext. P10(3) as her
signature.
In cross-examination, she testified that she saw the accused inflicting a blow
with the ‘dao’ on his wife and that the accused was a mentally ill person.
16. PW-5 Santanu Das, a seizure witness, deposed that on the day of the incident,
when he heard the noise from the compound of the accused, he went out and
noticed Binita and Hiya were lying dead with injuries in their courtyard. He also
Page No.# 8/25
noticed the accused with an axe in his hand roaming around the dead bodies.
Then the police were called. The compound, which was locked from the inside,
was opened by the police. He also deposed that the police seized one ‘axe,’
one ‘dao’ and blood-stained clothes from the compound of the accused. The
police took his signature as a witness to the seizure. He proved Ext. P7 & Ext. P8
as seizure list and Ext.P7(1) & Ext. P8(1) as his signature. In the compound, he
saw one woman and two girls, who were Binita’s guests.
In Cross-examination, he testified that he made a statement before the
Investigating Officer that he noticed the accused person roaming around the
dead bodies with an axe in his hand and that he did not see the accused
assaulting his wife and daughter.
17. PW-6 Sharmistha Kakati, an immediate neighbour of the accused, deposed
that on 13.10.2023 at about 4.30 PM, while hearing a commotion near the
compound of the accused, she went there, but the gate of the compound of
the accused was locked from inside. She noticed the accused with an axe in
his hand moving within his compound. She came to know that in the house of
the accused, the dead bodies of Binita Das and her daughter were lying. She
further deposed that Binita had told her that the accused had harassed her
both mentally and physically and that the victims used to reside in a separate
house within the same compound, which was also damaged by the accused.
In cross-examination, she testified that the surroundings of the compound of
the accused were covered with Cl Sheets of about seven feet height, and she
did not enter into the said compound on the day of the incident and that the
accused was unsociable, but he was not a mentally ill person. He earned his
livelihood by running a Photostat shop.
18. PW-7, Tirtha Nath Sarma, another seizure witness, deposed that after hearing
commotion, he went out and, by peeping through the tin boundary fence of
the accused, he noticed that both the deceased victims were lying with injuries
on their persons in the courtyard and the accused was moving with an axe in
Page No.# 9/25
his hand, singing a Hindi song. With the police, he entered the compound and
heard the accused confessing his guilt. He further deposed that the accused
also produced one ‘dao’ by which he had assaulted his wife and daughter.
In cross-examination, he testified that the fact of confessing guilt by the
accused before the police is not false.
19. PW-11 Kunja Lal Das, a seizure witness, deposed that on the day of the
incident, hearing the commotion, he went to the place of occurrence, where
the police and the villagers were present. He noticed the dead bodies of the
wife and daughter of the accused lying in their courtyard. The police seized a
hammer in his presence and took his signature on a piece of paper. He proved
Ext. P9(3) as his signature.
In cross-examination, he testified that he could not say who the owner of the
hammer was and had not seen the seized hammer in Court.
20. PW- 8 Ranjit Das is another seizure witness, who deposed that on 13.10.2023 at
about 4.30 PM, while he was at the Municipality Office, Barpeta, he received a
phone call from a person stating that an incident had occurred at the house of
Rishab Das. He immediately rang the police and proceeded to the accused’s
house, where he found the police and the public. He also noticed blood-
stained dead bodies of the victims lying in the courtyard. The police seized one
axe, one ‘dao’, one hammer and some other materials from the compound of
the accused, and he proved Exts. P7, P8 & P9 as his signatures. He also
witnessed the accused confess his guilt.
In cross-examination, he testified that the police picked up the axe and the
hammer, which were lying on the ground within the compound of the
accused, and the police picked up one ‘dao’ from a place where dried
woods were kept, one being led and shown by the accused Rishab Das.
21. PW-9 Kader Khusnobish Hazarika, another seizure witness, deposed that after
receiving information about the incident, he went to the spot and found the
police interrogating the accused, Rishab Das, who admitted his guilt before
Page No.# 10/25
them. At that time, he also noticed blood-stained dead bodies of Binita and
Hiya were lying by the side of the house of the accused.
In cross-examination, he testified that he noticed about 10/12 police personnel
in the compound of the accused and that he could not say where the police
had found the seized materials.
22. PW-17 Brigujit Choudhury, another seizure witness, deposed that the informant
is his brother-in-law. He learned about the incident from his sister over the
phone. After hearing about the incident, he immediately rushed to the house
of the accused, where he found several people and the police. The accused
was apprehended by the police. In his presence, the accused confessed to
the police that he killed his wife and daughter, Hiya. He further deposed that
he saw blood stains on the shirt of the accused, and the police seized it under
Ext. P15, seizure list. He proved Ext. P15(1) as his signature and identified Ext.
P15(2) as the signature of the accused in the seizure list.
In cross-examination, he testified that he did not know that the accused ever
suffered from a mental disorder and that the accused confessed before the
police that he killed his wife and daughter with a dao and an axe.
23.PW-12 Madhumita Das, a relative of the deceased Binita and co-villager, deposed
that her house is situated about 100 meters away from the house of the accused,
and she came to know from the informant that Binita Das was cut down in her
husband’s house.
24. PW-13 Abu Bakker Siddique, a petition writer, deposed that PW-1 asked him to
write an ejahar regarding the murder of his younger sister Binita Das and niece
Hiya Das, and he prepared an ejahar. He proved Ext. P1 as ejahar and Ext.
P1(2) and P1(3) as his signatures.
25. PW-14 Dr. Yutika Nath, a Jr. Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Directorate of
Forensic Science, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati, deposed that on the day of the
Page No.# 11/25
incident, she examined the articles in connection with. Barpeta P.S. Case
No.504/2023, u/s 120(B)/302 IPC. Exh No. Sero-897/23/C and Sero-897/23/L gave
negative results for the presence of human blood and the blood group of the
blood present in Exh No. Sero-897/23/J could not be ascertained due to
insufficient test material. She proved Ext-P11 as her report and Ext-P11(1) as her
signature.
26. PW-15 Dr. Arup Manta, a Scientific Officer, DNA Typing Unit, Directorate of
Forensic Science, Assam, deposed that on that day, he received a parcel from
the Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam, Kahilipara, in connection with
Barpeta P.S. Case 504/2023 registered under Sections 120(B)/302 IPC. The
parcel 1 consisted of seven exhibits in a sealed paper envelope; parcel 2
consisted of seven exhibits in a sealed paper envelope; and parcel 3 consisted
of three exhibits in a sealed cloth-covered wooden box, which were sealed
with the impression seal corresponding to the seal impression forwarded.
The result of the DNA fingerprinting analysis are to the following effect:
1. The DNA profile of exhibit no.DNA 7035/23, DNA 7036/23, DNA 7038/23,
DNA 7039/23, DNA 7040/23, DNA 7047/23, DNA 7049/23 & DNA 7051/23.
DNA 7042/23 (as marked) are matching with each other.
2. No amplifiable DNA could be obtained from the exhibit no.DNA
7037/23, DNA 7041/23, DNA 7043/23, DNA 7044/23, DNA 7045/23, DNA
7046/23, DNA 7048/23&DNA7050/23 (as marked). Ext-P12 is his report, and
Ext-P12(1) is his signature.
27. PW-16 Dr. Manoj Kr. Singha, Professor & Head of the Department of Forensic
Medicine, FAAMCH, Barpeta, deposed that in connection with Barpeta P.S.
GDE No. 379/2023, he performed post-postmortem examinations on the dead
bodies of Binita Das and Hiya Das on 13.03.2023. The dead bodies were
identified by C 432 Gopesh Talukdar, and he found multiple cut injuries present
over the scalp of Binita Das and over the forehead of Hiya. He opined that
Page No.# 12/25
death was due to coma as a result of head injuries. All injuries were ante-
mortem and caused by a sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature.
Approximate time since death was 12 to 24 hours. He proved Ext. P13 & P14 as
the post-mortem examination reports of Binita & Hiya, respectively, prepared by
him and Ext. P13(1) to Ext. P13(6) & P14(1) to P14(6) as his signatures therein. The
injuries identified are to the following effect:
Deceased Binita Das
(i) Multiple cut injuries present over the scalp. All bone deep.
(ii) cut injuries present on the back side of the neck.
(iii) cut injuries present on the left side of the mandible. Size 8×3 cm x bone deep.
(iv) cut injuries present on the left side of the cheek, Mouth, cavity deep.
(v) In both upper limbs, multiple cut injuries are present. In both hands, multiple cut injuries are present.
Metacarpal bones are cut.
Deceased Hiya Das
(I) Multiple cut injury present over the forehead.
(II) Multiple cut injuries are present over the right temporal and occipital area of the scalp.
(III) Multiple cut injury present below the right ear.
(IV) Multiple cut injury present in the right upper limb. Multiple cut injury present on the left upper
limb.
(V) Multiple cut injury present on both hands. Metacarpal bones are cut.
28. PW-18 Diki Talukdar, Crime Scene Officer, Sub-Inspector of Police (P), deposed
that as per the order of S.P., Barpeta, she acted as a Crime Scene Officer in
connection with the serious offences registered at Barpeta PS and Howly PS. On
that day, Addl. S.P, Crime, Barpeta District, called her to visit the spot as a
Crime Scene Officer, stating that a murder case was registered at Barpeta P.S.
She found the Sub-Inspector of Police, Biswajit Nath, who was the Investigating
Officer of Barpeta PS Case No. 504/2023, other police personnel, and the
accused on the spot, and two dead bodies were lying on the veranda of a
Page No.# 13/25
house of the accused. She took photographs of the dead bodies, collected
blood-stained soil from the dead bodies; blood stain from the spot, blood-
stained cloths from the dead bodies and hair mobile phone handset from the
spot and blood-stained axe and dao which were lying near the dead bodies.
After collecting it, she handed it over to the Investigating Officer. MO-1, MO-2,
MO-3 & MO-4 (1 to 7) are the seized axe, dao, mobile phone handset &
photographs.
In cross-examination, she testified that she found no Executive Magistrate on
the spot and did not prepare any memorandum after collecting blood-stained
hair, etc. and that in Ext. P8 seizure list, there is no mention of ‘dao.’
29. PW- 19 Biswajit Nath, Sub-Inspector of police, deposed that on the day of the
incident, at about 5 PM, one Santanu Das (PW-5) informed OC, Barpeta Sadar
PS over the phone that at Gandhinagar, one Rishab Das caused grievous
injuries to his wife and his daughter. After receiving the telephonic information,
the concerned OC made GD Entry 379 dated 13.10.2023 and directed him to
take necessary steps. He proved the extract copy of Barpeta PS GD Entry No
379 dated 13.10.2023 as Ext. P16 and the signature of the OC Ranjan Doley as
Ext. P16(1). Thereafter, he, along with the police staff, proceeded to the place
of occurrence and found the dead bodies of a woman and a girl on the
veranda of the house. He noticed several injury marks on the dead bodies and
found the accused there, and noticed blood stains on his clothing. So he
apprehended him. The accused identified the dead bodies. One of the dead
bodies was his wife, Binita Das, and the other dead body was his minor
daughter, Hiya Das. The accused confessed before him that he killed his wife
and daughter with a dao and an axe. One axe with blood stains and a mobile
phone handset were found lying near the dead bodies. He barricaded the
scene of the incident, informing his senior officers. In the place of occurrence,
there was another house. After a few minutes, one woman and two girls came
out and identified themselves as Nitu Das (PW-2), Ankita Das (PW-3), and
Page No.# 14/25
Mayuri Das (PW-4), who had witnessed the incident. They stated that they
came to attend a marriage in Gandhinagar and visited the accused’s house.
The accused had a heated exchange with his wife, and thereafter, he
attacked his wife and daughter with a ‘dao’ and an axe.’ He recorded their
statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. at the place of crime. On 16.10.2023, he
produced them before the Judicial Magistrate for recording their statements
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the meantime, senior police officers arrived at the
spot. Sub-Inspector of Police Diki Talukdar, at that time, acted as Crime Scene
Officer in connection with serious offences registered at Barpeta and Howly PSs,
who arrived at the spot and took photographs of the dead bodies, collected
blood from the dead bodies, and all other relevant materials.
The accused showed him the ‘dao’ used in the crime, and the same was
recovered from the house where he was sitting.
He seized the axe, the ‘dao’ and the mobile phone handset. He proved Ext. P7
as the seizure list, Ext. PB as the seizure list whereby he seized the axe with grip,
one mobile phone handset, blood stain collected cotton, blood stained piece
of cloths, some control soil from the place of occurrence, blood stain collected
in a cotton from the place of occurrence, where deceased Hiya Das was lying
which was preserved in a plastic container, blood stain collected in cotton
from deceased Binita Das which was preserved in a plastic container, piece of
cloth with blood stain collected from the body of deceased Binita Das, some
soil with blood collected from left side of the place of occurrence, blood stain
collected from the place of occurrence where Binita Das was lying, some long
hair found lying in the place of occurrence, some long hair lying near the place
of occurrence in a distance of 21 feet from the place of. The dead bodies of
Binita Das and Hiya Das were sent to FAAMCH, Barpeta.
In the morgue of the hospital, Executive Magistrate Nupur Bora conducted an
inquest over both the dead bodies.
Page No.# 15/25
On the next day, i.e. 14.10.2023 at FAAMCH, Barpeta, postmortem
examinations over the dead bodies of Binita Das and Hiya Das were
conducted. On that day, one Pulak Kr. Das filed a formal ejahar against
accused Rishab Das, his mother Kamini Das and his sister Junu Das and the
same was registered as Barpeta PS Case No. 504/2023. He examined the
informant and the editor, writer Abu Bakkar Siddique.
On 20.10.2023, he seized a hammer with wood grip from the place of
occurrence. Ext P9 is the seizure list. Ext. P9(4) is his signature. Ext. P18 is the
charge sheet filed by him. Ext. P18(1) is his signature.
In cross-examination, he testified that in the statement recorded u/s 161 of the
Cr.PC., the informant mentioned the names of Kamini Das and Junu Das. But
during the investigation, he did not find sufficient evidence against them to
prosecute in this case; the accused confessed their guilt before him, and he
did not request the Court to record the accused’s confessional statement. No
video was recorded while the Crime Scene Officer was collecting evidence
from the crime scene, and he seized the articles.
30. PW-20 Nupur Bora, Circle Officer of Barpeta Revenue Circle as well as
Executive Magistrate of Barpeta, deposed that she conducted an inquest over
the dead bodies of Binita Das and Hiya Das, in connection with Barpeta Sadar
P.S. GDE No. 379/2023 dated 23.10.2023. The dead bodies were identified by TSI
Biswajit Nath and one Pulak Kr. Das relative of the deceased. In the presence of
the above-mentioned relative of the deceased and independent witness
Kishor Kr. Lahkar and Dipak Choudhury, she conducted an inquest over the
dead bodies.
After inspection of the dead body of Binita Das, she found a head injury, injuries
on the face, injuries in her right hand and injuries in her back. She detected
multiple injury marks on the body of the deceased Binita Das. she proved Ext.
P2 as the inquest report over the dead body of Binita Das and Ext. P2(2) is her
Page No.# 16/25
signature.
After inspection of the dead body of Hiya Das, she found head injuries, injuries
on her face, injuries on her right and left hands and back. She proved Ext. P3 as
the inquest report over the dead body of Hiya Das and Ext. P3(1) as her
signature.
In cross-examination, she testified that at the time of conducting inquests over
the dead bodies, she did not consult with any doctor of the FAAMCH, Barpeta.
On being asked, TSI Biswajit Nath told her that he recovered a spear and a dao
from the scene of the incident.
31. PW-21 Kishor Kumar Lahakar is a witness to the inquest. He noticed injuries on
the dead bodies of the victims. He proved Ext. P2 as the inquest over the dead
body of Binita Das and Ext. P3 as the inquest over the dead body of Hiya Das
and Ext. P2(3) and Ext. P3(3) as his signature.
32. PW-22 Dipak Choudhury, is another witness to the inquest. In connection with
the incident, the Executive Magistrate conducted an inquest over the dead
bodies of Binita Das and Hiya Das in his presence at FAAMCH, Barpeta. He
noticed injuries on the dead bodies of the victims. He proved Ext. P2(4) and Ext.
P3(4) as his signature over the two inquest reports.
33. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties. Also, perused the materials available on record.
34. Now, let us revisit and reappreciate the evidence placed before the learned
Trial Court and examine its correctness.
35. Upon careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence and record, this Court
finds that the prosecution case rests on a coherent combination of ocular
testimony, corroborative circumstances and medical evidence, which must be
assessed holistically and not in isolation.
36. In the present case, the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-10 assume
Page No.# 17/25
central importance, as they are eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
37. The presence of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 at the place of occurrence is natural and
stands established as they had visited the house of the deceased on the
relevant day. From their depositions, it stands clearly proved that the gate of
the compound was found locked; when the deceased Binita was attempted
to open or break the lock, the accused arrived armed with ‘dao’ and ‘axe’; he
inflicted repeated blows upon Binita and that when the minor victim here
intervened to save her mother, she too was assaulted in a similar manner,
resulting in the instantaneous death of both.
38. The consistency in the narration of these witnesses on these material particulars
lends assurance to their credibility. During cross-examination, the defence
failed to shake their account of the incident.
39. PW10 is another eyewitness, and her presence at the scene of the crime is
supported by her being a resident of the same compound where the crime
occurred. Her presence is also supported by PW-4 during her cross-examination.
This witness supports the aforesaid evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. She has
deposed that she saw the accused locking the gate and, thereafter, assaulting
his wife with a ‘dao.’
40. This assumes significance in establishing the genesis of the occurrence and the
conduct of the accused immediately preceding the assault. Though PW-10 did
not witness the entire consequence, her testimony lends assurance to the
prosecution version and corroborates the presence and active role of the
accused in the commission of the crime.
41. PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7, though they are not eyewitnesses to the assault, have
provided evidence of considerable significance.
42. These witnesses have consistently deposed that upon hearing the commotion,
they reached the vicinity and saw the dead bodies of the victims lying within
Page No.# 18/25
the compound, while the accused was present inside, moving around with
weapons in hand.
43. PW-7 has further stated that the accused was behaving in an unusual manner
and produced one of the weapons before the police.
44. These witnesses have candidly admitted in cross-examination that they did not
witness the assault itself, which in our view enhances rather than diminishes their
credibility as they have not attempted to exaggerate their versions.
45. Their testimonies establish the conduct of the accused immediately after the
occurrence. The evidentiary value of such conduct is well recognised under
Section 10 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA for short).
46. The accused’s conduct before and after the occurrence constitutes a
relevant circumstance and can serve as an important link in the chain of
evidence, lending support to the eyewitnesses’ accounts.
47. The medical evidence, as deposed by PW-16, fully supports the ocular version.
48. The presence of multiple antemortem injuries caused by sharp-cutting
weapons leading to death is entirely consistent with the prosecution case of
repeated blows by ‘dao’ and ‘axe.’
49. There is no inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence.
50. It needs no reiteration of the settled principle of law that where medical
evidence corroborates ocular testimony, it lends assurance to the prosecution
case, unless it completely rules out the prosecution version.
51. The recovery of the weapons of the offence and other incriminating materials
from the place of occurrence, as duly proved through the Investigating
Officer and seizure witnesses, namely PW-5 and PW-8, provides further
corroboration.
52. The presence of the accused at the scene with blood-stained clothes, a
Page No.# 19/25
locked compound gate, and two dead bodies with multiple injuries lying inside
there, coupled with the recovery of ‘dao’ and ‘axe’, strengthens the
prosecution case.
53. Minor lapses in investigation, such as absence of videography or certain
omissions in seizure documentation raised by defence, do not go to the root of
the matter when the substantive evidence is otherwise reliable.
54. It is by now well settled that defects in investigation cannot be overlooked
when the prosecution evidence is cogent and credible.
55. An important circumstance that cannot be overlooked is that the prosecution
has firmly established that the entire occurrence took place within the
confines of the compound of the accused, which was found locked from the
inside. The accused was present within the same enclosure, armed and in
proximity to the dead bodies.
56. These are facts, especially within the knowledge of the accused. In such a
situation, the principle embodied under Section 109 of BSA assumes relevance.
57. In the present case, the accused, however, had failed to furnish any
explanation in his statements under Section 351 BNSS. Such failure constitutes
an additional incriminating circumstance.
58. PW 1, the informant and the brother of the deceased Binita Das,
deposed regarding the immediate information received by him and his arrival
at the place of occurrence, where he found the dead bodies lying on the
‘veranda’ of the house of the accused. Though not an eyewitness, his
testimony is significant in establishing the prompt lodging of the FIR, the
surrounding circumstances and the existence of prior matrimonial
discord between the accused and the deceased.
59. His evidence also proves that the inquest proceeding was conducted in his
presence.
Page No.# 20/25
60. Though the testimony of the informant is partially hearsay, it is relevant to the
extent it explains the genesis of the prosecution case and provides assurance
to the promptness and authenticity of the FIR.
61. The forensic evidence, though partially inconclusive in serology, does not
detract from the prosecution case or dent it.
62. The DNA analysis indicates matching profiles among several exhibits, thereby
supporting the presence of biological material consistent with the
occurrence. This Expert evidence, though corroborative in nature, strengthens
the prosecution case while aligned with other evidence.
63. The Inquest reports, as proved by PW-20 and supported by PW-1, PW-21 and
PW-22, further establish the condition of the dead bodies, and the multiple
injuries recorded in the postmortem report, duly proved by the prosecution.
64. The defence has attempted to raise a plea of insanity. However, apart from
vague suggestions put to the witnesses in cross-examination, no
substantive evidence has been adduced to establish that such a plea lies upon
the accused under Section 105 BSA. Mere assertions or suggestions are
insufficient in law.
65. The alleged confession and statement made before the police officer, as
deposed by PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-17 & PW-19, are inadmissible under Section
23(1) & Section 23(2) of BSA and are accordingly excluded from our
consideration.
66. When the evidence is considered cumulatively, it establishes a complete and
consistent chain; the direct eyewitness account of multiple assaults upon the
victims by the accused, with ‘dao’ and ‘axe’ on 13.10.2023 at around 5 p.m.
inside the residential compound of the accused in the presence of PW-2, PW-3,
PW-4 and PW-10. It is also established beyond a reasonable doubt through the
independent witness, such as PW-5, PW-7, PW-11 as to the immediate
Page No.# 21/25
aftermath and conduct of the accused, further supported through the seizure
witnesses, the recovery of the weapons from the place of the occurrence. The
medical evidence fully supports the manner of assault and the homicidal
nature of the injury. Given the recovery of weapons from the place of
occurrence, the absence of any plausible explanation from the accused, it
can safely be concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove its case
beyond any reasonable doubt.
67. The standard of proof required in criminal law, in our opinion, in the backdrop
of the discussions made herein above, stands satisfied.
68. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached
by the learned Trial Court that the accused committed the murder of his wife,
Binita Das and his minor daughter, Hiya Das.
69. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is accordingly affirmed.
70. Now, coming to the sentence, the sentencing exercise is not a mechanical
reaction to the nature of the crime, but a principled balancing of aggravating
and mitigating factors.
71. The question, therefore, now arises whether the sentence of death imposed by
the learned Trial Court can be sustained in law.
72. The sentencing exercise in capital cases is no longer unguided but is structured
by constitutional principles evolved by the Supreme Court, beginning with
Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab, reported in 1982 SCC 684, and consistently
reaffirmed thereafter.
73. The governing norm is that the death penalty may be imposed only in the
rarest of cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably
foreclosed.
74. The constitutional ethos supported by Article 21 of the Constitution of India
demands that deprivation of life must be just, fair and reasonable, where lesser
Page No.# 22/25
yet adequate punishment, namely, life imprisonment, can meet ends of justice,
the extreme penalty ought not to be imposed.
75. The framework of this inquiry, as laid down in Bachan Singh (supra), has been
further crystallised in Vasanta Sampat Tupare versus Union of India, reported in
AIR Online 2025 SC 1167, which mandates a threefold assessment.
76. The Court is required first to evaluate the nature of the crime and the
attendant aggravating circumstances; second, to consider the circumstances
of the offender, including the possibility of reform and rehabilitation; and third,
to undertake a principled balancing to determine whether life imprisonment
would be inadequate and whether the accused is beyond reformation.
77. This approach underscores that sentencing must be both crime-centric and
criminal-centric, rather than merely a reaction to the brutality of the act.
78. Tested on this framework, the present case undoubtedly discloses grave
aggravating circumstances.
79. The accused has caused the death of his wife and minor daughter within the
confines of his residence. The manner of assault involving repeated blows with
sharp, cutting weapons reflects a high degree of brutality.
80. The victims were defenceless, and the crime constitutes a breach of the most
intimate zone of trust. Such circumstances weigh heavily against the accused
and satisfy the crime test as delineated in Vasanta Sampath Tupare (Supra).
81. The Court is equally obliged to examine the criminal test, namely, whether the
accused is beyond the possibility of reformation inasmuch as the penological
goal of reform remains a concern of our criminal justice system.
82. There is no material on record to indicate that the accused is beyond the pale
of reformation or that he constitutes a continuing threat to society. The learned
Trial Court has also failed to carry out the exercise mandated by law to collate
such material.
Page No.# 23/25
83. In the absence of such a finding and a collection assessment of materials, it
would be contrary to the settled principles to extinguish the life of the accused
when the law leans in favour of preserving it.
84. It is equally well settled that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish
that the accused is incapable of reformation and that life imprisonment would
be wholly inadequate.
85. The record is conspicuously silent on any psychological, behavioural, or
institutional assessment suggesting incurable depravity. In such circumstances,
the imposition of the death penalty would be disproportionate and
constitutionally suspect.
86. The sentencing phase must reflect a comprehensive consideration of all
relevant factors, including a meaningful hearing under Section 335(2)BNSS.
87. The material placed does not disclose a sufficiently informed sentencing
enquiry. The absence of a detailed evaluation of mitigating circumstances
vitiates the sentencing exercise, warranting appellate Court intervention.
88. In this regard, the record is conspicuously silent. No material has been placed
by the prosecution relating to the psychological profile of the accused, his
conduct in custody, or any other objective indicators that should enable the
Court to arrive at a conclusion that he is incapable of reform.
89. The Supreme Court, more recently in Manoj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in 2023-2-SCC-353, has emphasised that the burden lies on the state
to place such material, and absence thereof must operate as a mitigating
circumstance.
90. It is now well settled that brutality, however grave, cannot by itself justify the
imposition of the death penalty. Unless a definitive finding is recorded that the
accused is beyond reformation, the extreme penalty would not be
unwarranted.
Page No.# 24/25
91. The present case does not meet that threshold.
92. The mitigating factors, such as the absence of prior criminal antecedents,
socio-economic background, the possibility of reformation, and the age of the
accused, tilt the balance against the irreversible penalty of death. The
sentencing Court, in our respectful view, has accorded disproportionate
weightage to aggravating circumstances while insufficiently appreciating the
mitigating spectrum.
93. The balancing stage, therefore, is in favour of the alternative punishment.
94. The gravity of the offence is such that a sentence of life imprisonment, subject
to remission, would meet the ends of justice and the case does not satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the imposition of the death penalty.
95. The appropriate course, in our opinion, lies in adopting the principle permitting
the imposition of life sentence subject to remission.
96. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the sentence
of death imposed upon the accused cannot be sustained. Having regard to
the nature and gravity of the offence, the ends of justice would be met by
imposing a sentence of life subject to remission.
97. In view of the aforesaid discussions, determinations and reasons, while
affirming the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court, we deem it
appropriate to commute the sentence of death to imprisonment for life.
98. Accordingly, the Death Sentence Reference No. 2/2025 and Crl. A.(J) No.
185/2025 stands disposed of by modifying the order of sentence dated
22.10.2025 as recorded hereinabove.
99. The TCR be returned to the Trial Court forthwith.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Page No.# 25/25
Comparing Assistant