Calcutta HC sets aside death sentence of man branded “demon” by trial court for breaking marriage vows, killing wife

The Calcutta High Court recently set aside the death sentence of a man for murdering his wife, holding that the trial court had wrongly reasoned that he was a “demon” who had failed to stick to his marriage vows and deserved to be executed [State of West Bengal v. Sujit Dey Bhowmik].

A Bench of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Smita Das De upheld the man’s conviction for murdering his wife with an axe and injuring two of her family members. However, it commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that the trial court had failed to properly consider the mitigating circumstances and the possibility of his reform.

"The learned Judge stressed on the Vedic Mantras chanted by the spouses at the time of marriage and arrived at the conclusion that, as the appellant did not hesitate to murder his wife and chose to forget the love, affection, contribution and sacrifice of his spouse, this was a rarest of ‘rare’ case to award death penalty...Thus, according to the trial court the appellant was a ‘demon’ and his mind could not be changed even if he was given training and spiritual lectures in the correctional home. We do not agree to the death penalty. Every person guilty of commission of a grave offence can undergo transformation," the Court said.

The case arose from an incident in Jalpaiguri in June 2023. The man, one Sujit Dey Bhowmik, attacked his wife with an axe during a quarrel at her parents’ house. Their 7-year-old son witnessed the assault. When the wife's mother and grandmother tried to intervene, they too were attacked.

The wife died from her injuries. Her mother suffered a deep cut injury to her chest, while her grandmother suffered injuries to her back, hands and eye, resulting in the loss of vision in one eye.

The trial court convicted Bhowmik of murder and attempt to murder and sentenced him to death for the former offence in April 2025. The reasoning for imposing the death penalty, however, came under scrutiny before the High Court.

The trial judge placed considerable emphasis on the Hindu marriage vows exchanged by the couple. It held that Bhowmik had not hesitated to murder his wife despite those vows and had forgotten the love, affection, contribution and sacrifice of his spouse. The fact that he killed her at her father’s house in the presence of her family was also treated as a circumstance showing exceptional brutality.

On this basis, the trial court held that the case fell within the “rarest of the rare” category warranting death penalty. It described Bhowmik as a “demon” and held that his mind could not be changed even through training or spiritual lectures in prison.

The High Court rejected this approach while upholding Bhowmik's conviction. It noted that the judge never called for a report on Bhowmik’s conduct in custody and never sought a psychiatric evaluation either.

A probation officer’s report, obtained later at the High Court’s direction, found that Bhowmik had no prior criminal record, had behaved well in custody and was undergoing counselling. He also had a young son and an elderly mother depending on him, none of which the trial court had weighed.

The Court also noted that the killing may not have been premeditated. Bhowmik and his wife had shared tea and breakfast with the rest of the family barely half an hour before the attack. A quarrel had broken out soon after, and the violence appeared to follow from that.

Citing Supreme Court rulings that make it mandatory for trial courts to examine an accused’s mental state and chances of reform before imposing a death sentence, the Bench found that the trial court’s reasoning fell short of this standard.

Its special reasons for awarding death penalty, the Court held, were “entirely based on the rituals of a Hindu marriage". It accordingly commuted Bhowmik’s death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Advocates Aniruddha Biswas, Subham Chanda, Monoj Saha and Kanak Mishra appeared for the appellant.

Advocates Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Abhijit Sarkar and Arjun Chowdhury appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]