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 8x3 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