Gauhati High Court
The State Of Assam vs Rintu Sarmah on 5 August, 2026
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010239662025
2026:GAU-AS:10807-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Death Sentence Ref./1/2025
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
VERSUS
RINTU SARMAH
N/A
Advocate for the Petitioner : PP, ASSAM, MR Z KAMAR, AMICUS CURIAE
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Linked Case : Crl.A./429/2025
RINTU SARMAH
S/O LATE PURNANANDA SARMAH
R/O VILL. NO. 2 NAGAON
MORIDHAL
ASSAM
PIN 787057
P.O. MORIDHAL
P.S. DHEMAJI.
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/16
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP. ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR
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 : Mr S. Borthakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by:
Mr P. Khataniar, Advocate in Crl. A. No. 429/2025
For the Respondents : Mr R. R. Kaushik, Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assam.
Amicus Curiae : Mr Z. Kamar, learned Senior Advocate/Amicus Curiae
assisted by Mr S. J. Choudhury, learned Advocate, in
Death Sentence Ref. No. 01/2025
Date on which the Judgment is
Reserved : 22.07.2026.
Date of the pronouncement of
Judgment : 05.08.2026
Whether the pronouncement
Page No.# 3/16
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. 01/2025 and Crl. Appeal No. 429/2025 have been heard
together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.
2. We have heard Mr S. Borthakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr P. Khataniar,
learned Advocate for the appellant in Crl. Appeal. No. 429/2025 and Mr R. R. Kaushik,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State. We have also heard Mr Z.
Kamar, learned Senior Advocate/Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr S. J. Choudhury,
learned counsel in Death Sentence Reference No. 01/2025.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.08.2021, after the completion of the
examination at Moridhol College, the deceased, Nandita Saikia, was returning towards
Dhemaji along with PW-2 Kasmina Dutta, her friend, on the motorcycle driven by PW-
1 Deba Dutta, the father of PW-2. The accused allegedly followed them on a red-
coloured scooty and, on reaching near Drug House Pharmacy in the vicinity of ASTC
bus stand, Dhemaji Town, attacked PW-1 with a Khamti Dao. When PW-2 intervened,
she too was assaulted on her head. The accused thereafter turned towards Nandita
Saikia and inflicted repeated Dao blows upon her, particularly on her head, causing
grievous injuries. The accused then fled from the place, carrying the weapon, and was
shortly thereafter apprehended at Pasoni Goli with the Dao in his possession. All three
injured were initially taken for medical treatment and, owing to the serious nature of
her injuries, Nandita Saikia was subsequently shifted to a higher medical centre at
Dibrugarh, where she ultimately succumbed to the injuries.
Page No.# 4/16
4. An FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Dhemaji Police Station.
Accordingly, Dhemaji PS Case No. 397/2021, under Sections 341/326 IPC, was
registered against the accused-appellant, Rintu Sarmah, and the usual investigation was
commenced. Subsequently, Section 302 of IPC was added.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, police laid a charge sheet in the case under
Sections 341/326/307/302 IPC against the accused/appellant.
6. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Additional CJM, Dhemaji took cognisance
of the offences and thereafter committed the case to the learned Court of Sessions
Judge, Dhemaji. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections
341/302/324/307 IPC against the accused/appellant, Rintu Sarmah, and read them over
to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty; accordingly, the trial proceeded.
7. During the Trial, to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 41
witnesses and exhibited 27 documents and 11 material objects. The accused was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence did not adduce any witnesses in his
support.
8. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Session Judge, under its Judgment dated
20.08.2025, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
302/307/324/341 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC and treating such a
criminal act under the category of “rarest of the rare case”, the learned Sessions Judge
sentenced the accused to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
He was further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under
Section 307 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Section 324 IPC, and
Simple Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 341 IPC, apart from the fine/default
stipulation imposed by the learned trial court.
9. Consequent upon the award of death sentence, the learned Session Judge has made the
present Death Sentence Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the
Page No.# 5/16
sentence, while the accused has preferred the connected Criminal Appeal assailing the
judgment of conviction and sentences imposed upon him.
10. Mr S. Borthakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing
the conviction as well as the sentence, argues that the learned trial court failed to
appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and accepted the prosecution version
notwithstanding material omissions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the
principal witnesses. Particular emphasis was placed upon the omission brought out in
the previous statements of PW-1 and PW-2, and it was contended that their evidence
being that of closely related and interested witnesses required greater circumspection
before being made the foundation of the conviction.
It was further argued that the evidence of other witnesses does not furnish such
independent corroboration as to cure the infirmities in the testimony of the principal
witnesses as well as the witnesses of doctors in describing the nature of injuries at
different stages.
11. The appellant also questioned the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery, the
electronic evidence, and certain lapses in the investigation, and contended that the
cumulative effect of these deficiencies entitled the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
12. In the alternative, on the question of sentence, learned Senior Counsel submitted that,
even assuming the conviction under Section 302 IPC to be sustained, the case does not
satisfy the stringent requirement of the “rarest of the rare” category warranting the
imposition of the death penalty.
13. It was urged that the learned trial court placed predominant emphasis upon the brutality
of the crime without undertaking the necessary individualised sentencing exercise
concerning the offender. According to the appellant, the circumstances relating to his
age and antecedence, possibility of reformation and rehabilitation and his overall socio-
economic background were not weighed against the aggravating circumstances of the
crime. The alternative of imprisonment for life, it was submitted, was not questionably
Page No.# 6/16
foreclosed.
14. Accordingly, it is urged that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted; in the
alternative, if the conviction is sustained, decline confirmation of the death sentence,
and commute the same to imprisonment for life.
15. Per contra, Mr R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while supporting
the conviction and sentence, urged that the nature and manner of commission of the
offence discloses exceptional brutality. The accused, armed with a sharp cutting
weapon, followed the victims, first attacked PW-1, assaulted PW-2 and thereafter
inflicted repeated blows upon the deceased, particularly on the vital region of her head.
The attack was committed in broad daylight at a public place and continued despite the
deceased being rendered defenceless. According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the manner of assault, the weapon employed, the repeated blows upon the
vital parts of the body and the resultant death cumulatively constitute aggravating
circumstances of the highest order and therefore, the sentence imposed by the learned
trial Court calls for confirmation.
16. Mr Z. Kamar, learned Senior Advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae in the Death
Sentence Reference, submitted that confirmation of the death sentence requires a
scrutiny qualitatively different from an ordinary appeal against conviction. Even when
the prosecution has established the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt, the
court is required to independently determine whether the alternative of life
imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The aggravating circumstances relating to
the crime must be balanced against all mitigating circumstances about the offender,
including the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, submitted Mr Kamar.
17. According to the learned Amicus, the brutality of the offence, though undoubtedly
relevant, cannot by itself conclude the sentencing enquiry. The learned Amicus
accordingly urged the Court to undertake an independent and individualised sentencing
assessment before determining whether the case crosses the exceptionally high
threshold prescribed for confirmation of capital punishment.
Page No.# 7/16
18. Having bestowed our anxious consideration upon the rival submissions and upon
careful examination of the evidence available on record, we found that the prosecution
seeks to establish the guilt of the accused, principally based on: (i) the testimony of the
injured witness, (ii) the evidence of the independent witnesses, (iii) the medical
evidence, (iv) the seizure of the weapon of offence and other incriminating articles.
Each of these categories of evidence deserves independent examination.
19. Upon careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution
case substantially rests upon the testimony of PW-1 Deba Dutta and PW-2 Kasmina
Dutta, both of whom are injured eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Their version receives
substantial corroboration from the independent witnesses present at the place of
occurrence, the medical evidence, the immediate recovery of the weapon of the offence
after the incident, and the investigation conducted without undue delay.
20. PW-1, the informant and the injured witness, deposed that after Higher Secondary
Examination of his daughter, he was returning from Moridhal College on his
motorcycle with his daughter PW-2 and the deceased as pillion riders. After reaching
Dhemaji town and stopping near the Drug House pharmacy, the accused, who had
followed them on a red scooty, suddenly attacked him with a khamti dao, causing
injuries on his chest and hand. When PW-2 intervened, she too was inflicted with dao
blows, causing injuries. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly assaulted the deceased,
particularly on her head, before fleeing from the place carrying the weapon in his hand.
His testimony further establishes the immediate shifting of the injured to the hospital
and prompt lodging of the F.I.R.
21. PW-2, who also sustained injuries in the same occurrence, has materially corroborated
PW-1 on every material aspect. She consistently stated that the accused first assaulted
PW-1, thereafter inflicted a blow on her when she attempted to rescue her father, and
then repeatedly attacked the deceased with the dao. She also identified the seized
article connected with the occurrence.
PW-2 also throws light on the motive and the events preceding the occurrence. She
Page No.# 8/16
stated that about four months prior to the death of Nandita Saikia, the latter had told her
in the college hostel that the accused had proposed marriage to her, which she had
declined as she wanted to pursue her studies. More significantly, PW-2 herself
witnessed a subsequent incident when she and Nandita were proceeding from the
college towards their hostel; the accused met them on the way and told Nandita that he
would take her away by force and, if not, would kill her. Thus, the evidence regarding
the proposal to the marriage and the subsequent threat made in her presence is within
her direct knowledge. Her evidence on the later aspect remained intact in cross-
examination, where she specifically denied the suggestion that the accused had never
intimated Nandita prior to her death.
22. Both PW-1 and PW-2 remained firm during lengthy cross-examination. Though certain
omissions in their previous statements were duly proved through the Investigating
Officer, they pertain only to peripheral details and do not relate to the identity of the
accused, the place of occurrence, the weapon used, or the sequence of assault.
23. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inspires complete confidence. Their presence at the
place of occurrence is not merely probable. Still, it stands conclusively established by
the injuries sustained by them, which are supported by contemporaneous medical
evidence through PW-34, PW-35, and PW-39, which shall be discussed at the later part
of the judgement.
24. Their testimonies are natural, mutually corroborative, and consistent regarding the
genesis of the occurrence, the identity of the assailant, the weapon used, and the
manner in which the assault was committed. The defence has failed to elicit any
circumstance suggesting false implication or exaggeration.
25. It is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness occupies a special place in the
law of evidence. Such a witness carries an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene
of the occurrence and would ordinarily spare the real offender while falsely implicating
another. Unless compelling reasons exist to discard such testimony, it deserves greater
evidentiary weight. Minor discrepancies and omissions, which are natural
Page No.# 9/16
consequences of a traumatic incident like the present one, do not affect the substratum
of the prosecution case. Applying these settled principles, we find no reason to discard
the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which forms a safe and reliable foundation for the
prosecution case.
26. The ocular account furnished by PW-1 and PW-2 also receives substantial assurance
from the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution.
27. PW-3, a shopkeeper situated opposite the place of occurrence, and PW-4, an auto
rickshaw driver waiting for passengers near the ASTC bus stand, had consistently
stated that they witnessed the accused repeatedly assaulting the victim with a Dao in
broad daylight. PW-9 witnessed the immediate aftermath of the occurrence, chased the
accused and found him shortly thereafter carrying the weapon before his apprehension.
28. Their presence at the scene was wholly natural, as the incident had occurred in one of
the commercial areas of Dhemaji town. Nothing substantial emerged during their cross-
examination to cast any doubt on their credibility or their presence at the place of
occurrence.
29. Though these witnesses are not principal eyewitnesses, their evidence materially
corroborates the injured witness regarding the identity of the accused, the place of
occurrence, the weapon used, the repeated assault upon the deceased, and the conduct
of the accused immediately after the occurrence. Their testimony thus furnishes
independent assurance to the version narrated by PW-1 and PW-2.
30. The ocular version also finds complete support from the medical evidence.
31. PW-35, the first doctor who examined all the injured immediately after the occurrence,
noticed sharp-cut injuries on PW-1 and PW-2, and multiple grievous sharp-cut injuries
on the head and upper limb of the deceased. Considering the grievous nature of her
injuries, the deceased was immediately referred to a higher medical centre.
PW-34, who treated the deceased at Dibrugarh, found multiple grievous sharp-cut
Page No.# 10/16
injuries over the skull, shoulder, and upper limb of the deceased consistent with assault
by a sharp-cutting weapon.
PW-39, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found extensive anti-mortem
head injuries with corresponding internal cranial damage and opined that the death
occurred due to coma resulting from such injuries. He further ruled out the possibility
of injuries being caused by road traffic accidents, as suggested by the defence, and
categorically described the death as homicidal.
32. Medical evidence thus forms an unbroken chain, commencing from the first
examination immediately after the occurrence, continuing through treatment, and
culminating in post-mortem examination. The injuries noticed by the medical experts
completely corresponded with the ocular version regarding the nature of the injuries,
the nature of the weapon used, and the manner in which the assault was committed.
The defence has been unable to point out any inconsistency between the medical and
ocular evidence. On the contrary, the medical evidence lends complete assurance to the
testimony of the injured eyewitnesses.
33. It is by now well settled that where the ocular testimony is found to be reliable and
trustworthy, the medical evidence is intended to lend assurance there. It is only when
medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution version that the ocular account
may require closer scrutiny. In the present case, the medical evidence not only supports
but substantially fortifies the ocular testimony of the injured and independent
witnesses.
34. The prosecution has further established that immediately after the occurrence, the
accused fled the scene, carrying the weapon used in the offence, and was apprehended
shortly thereafter while still in possession of it.
The evidence of the Seizure Witnesses, namely, PW-6, PW-7, PW-17, and the
Investigating Officers, namely, PW-40 and PW-41, establishes the recovery of the
Page No.# 11/16
weapon and the red scooty used by the accused.
Though none of these witnesses had actually witnessed the assault, their testimonies
furnish independent corroboration to the evidence of PW-9 regarding the accused
fleeing from the place of occurrence with the weapon immediately after the assault.
The PW-6 saw the accused sitting beneath a bamboo bush with the Khamti dao in his
hand, attempting to inflict injuries upon himself with the same weapon. Similar is the
testimony of PW-7.
35. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses establish an uninterrupted sequence beginning
from assault in front of the Drug House Pharmacy in Dehmaji town and culminating in
apprehension of the accused with the weapon of the offence in his possession nearby
the place of occurrence under a bamboo grove and seizure of the Dao from the
possession of the accused. Such continuity materially reduces the possibility of
fabrication or false implication.
36. The overall appreciation of these witnesses conjointly with the testimony of PW-9, we
are satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the post-
occurrence conduct of the accused, i.e. his flight from the place of occurrence, his
apprehension within a short time with Khamti dao still in his possession, the seizure of
the weapon and the red scooty.
Though these circumstances by themselves may not establish the guilt of the accused,
they furnish strong corroboration of the otherwise reliable ocular and medical
evidence, a complete and important segment of the incriminating circumstances relied
on by the prosecution.
The recovery of the weapon and the conduct of the accused immediately after the
occurrence constitute additional corroborative circumstances under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act.
37. Though the prosecution also relied upon electronic evidence depicting the immediate
Page No.# 12/16
aftermath, it does not rest on any alleged extrajudicial admission before the video
journalist (PW-22) but rather on otherwise cogent ocular and medical evidence.
38. The PW-40, the IO, was subjected to an elaborate cross-examination, wherein several
omissions in the statement of the prosecution witness recorded under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. were brought on record.
39. We have carefully examined those omissions. Most of them relate to subsidiary details,
such as the exact sequence of events, the positions of the witnesses, or other peripheral
circumstances. None of these omissions relates to the identity of the accused, the place
of occurrence, the weapon of assault or injuries sustained by the victim. The omissions,
therefore, do not affect the core of the prosecution case. On the contrary, they merely
indicate that statements recorded during investigations were not intended to be
exhaustive narrations of minute details of the occurrence.
40. No materials have also been brought on record to suggest that any relevant witness was
deliberately withheld, that any incriminating article was fabricated or planted or that
any circumstance favourable to the defence was intentionally suppressed. The
investigation appears to have been conducted with reasonable promptitude immediately
after the occurrence.
41. Even otherwise, it is well settled that every omission or lapse on the part of the
Investigating Officer does not necessarily render the prosecution case doubtful, unless
the defects in investigation go to the root of the prosecution case and create a
reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the occurrence itself.
42. The court cannot disregard otherwise reliable evidence merely because the
investigation could have been conducted more efficiently. Criminal trials are primarily
concerned with the reliability of evidence produced before the court; the perfection of
the investigation comes later.
43. On overall appreciation of the evidence, we find that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2
Page No.# 13/16
is reliable and trustworthy and stands firmly corroborated by the independent
witnesses, namely PW-3 and PW-4, the medical evidence of PW-34, PW-35 and PW-
39, the recovery of the weapon immediately after the incident in the presence of PW-6,
PW-7, PW-17 and PW-9 and by the surrounding circumstances. These pieces of
evidence form a consistent and unbroken chain leaving no reasonable doubt regarding
the identity of the accused or manner in which the occurrence took place.
44. The aforesaid evidence assumes significance when considered with the conduct of the
accused on the date of occurrence. PW-2 saw the accused following their motorcycle
on a red-coloured scooty after they had travelled about 1½ KMs from Moridhal
College and thereafter, overtaking them before reaching Dhemaji town. Shortly
thereafter, when they stopped in front of the Drug House Pharmacy, the accused
appeared with Khamti Dao and launched the assault. The earlier threat spoken to by
PW-2, the accused following the deceased on the date of occurrence and the
subsequent armed attack cannot be viewed as disconnected circumstances. Read
together, they furnish a discernible motive and also lend assurance to the prosecution
case regarding the genesis of the occurrence.
45. We are therefore satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charges against the
accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard of proof required in criminal law,
in our opinion, in the backdrop of the discussions made hereinabove, stands satisfied.
46. 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 Nandita Saikia and
attempted to murder of PW-1 Deba Dutta and PW-2, Kashmina Dutta and in the
process they got serious injuries in their body. The conviction under Sections
302/307/324/341 IPC is accordingly affirmed.
47. Having affirmed the conviction of the appellant, the question now arises as to whether
the sentence of death imposed by the learned Trial Court can be sustained in law.
48. The sentencing exercise in a capital punishment case is no longer unguided and is
Page No.# 14/16
structured by principles evolved by the Supreme Court beginning with Bachchan
Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1982 3 SCC 24, which mandated that death
penalty may be imposed only in the “rarest of the rare case” where alternative of life
imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
49. Such framework has been further crystallised in Machhi Singh and Ors -Vs- State of
Punjab reported in 1993 (3) SCC 470 and recently, in Vasanta Sampat Dupare -Vs-
Union of India and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1823, which mandates a
threefold assessment -first, to evaluate the nature of the crime and attended aggravating
circumstances; second, to consider the circumstance of the offender including the
possibility of reform and rehabilitation; and third, to undertake a balancing act to
determine whether life imprisonment would be inadequate and whether the accused is
beyond reformation.
50. Thus, the sentencing must be both crime-centric and criminal-centric rather than
merely a reaction to the brutality of the act.
51. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, after referring to the principles laid down in
Bachchan Singh (supra) and Machhi Singh (supra), held that the case falls within the
“rarest of the rare category”. It took into consideration the pre-meditated nature of the
attack, the repeated blows inflicted upon the deceased in a public place and the age of
the deceased.
It further held that except for the age of the appellant, who was 34 years of age, no
mitigating circumstance was brought before the Court.
52. There can be little doubt that the crime was grave and the manner of its commission
was brutal. The appellant followed the victim, was armed with a sharp cutting weapon,
assaulted the PW-1 and PW-2, and thereafter, inflicted repeated blows upon the
deceased, particularly on her head.
These are, without a iota of doubt, serious aggravating circumstances. However, it is
Page No.# 15/16
well settled that the brutality of the crime, by itself, cannot conclude the sentencing
exercise.
The death sentence is an exception. Therefore, before imposing such extreme penalty,
the Court must consider not only the circumstances of the crime, but also the
circumstances of the criminal and determine whether the alternative of life
imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
53. We find that the sentencing exercise undertaken by the learned Trial Court is deficient
in this regard.
After noting the appellant’s age as the only mitigating circumstance, the learned Trial
Court concluded that the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating
circumstances.
It further inferred absence of remorse and absence of scope of reformation from the
fact that the appellant denied the occurrence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In our opinion, such a denial is a part of the defence of the accused and therefore, by
itself, cannot furnish a safe basis to conclude that he is incapable of reformation.
There are no other sufficient materials on record to conclude that there is no possibility
of reformation or rehabilitation. The gravity of the offence cannot fill these evidentiary
gaps.
Public outrage or the shocking nature of an offence may indeed raise serious societal
concern. Still, the sentencing decision must rest on the judicially recognised principle
governing capital punishment, as recorded hereinabove.
54. In the absence of any such finding and collection of assessment material, it would be
contrary to the settled principle to extinguish the life of the accused when the law leans
in favour of preserving it, more particularly when the prosecution has failed to
discharge its burden to establish that the accused is incapable of reformation and that
Page No.# 16/16
life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate.
55. To conclude, while we find the aggravating circumstance to be substantial, we are
unable to hold that the alternative of life imprisonment stands unquestionably
foreclosed. In our opinion, the present case does not meet the high threshold required
to confirm a death sentence.
56. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC,
we decline to award the sentence of death and commute the same to imprisonment for
life.
57. The death sentence reference is answered accordingly. The conviction under Sections
307/324/341 IPC also stands affirmed. The sentences are to run concurrently.
58. The TCR be returned to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
