Calcutta High Court Reduces Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Stabbing Ex-Girlfriend 45 Times

Although the original death sentence that was handed down by the trial court was reduced to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for a term of forty years, the conviction of Susanta Chowdhury for the heinous murder of his ex-girlfriend on May 2, 2022 was upheld by the decision of the Calcutta High Court. The incident occurred on May 2, 2022.

Furthermore, the decision was upheld on June 11th, 2025 according to the court. At the same time, the criminal appeal that was submitted by Chowdhury and the death reference that was submitted by the State were both considered by a panel of two judges consisting of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

The bench came to the conclusion that the crime did not meet the “rarest of rare” criteria, which is necessary in order to uphold the death penalty in accordance with the Indian constitution. This was the case despite the fact that the crime was extremely heinous. The conclusion that was arrived at was as follows.

It was around 6:35 o’clock in the evening when the incident took place on the side of the road in front of a private property in the Behrampore neighborhood of Murshidabad. According to witnesses, Chowdhury, who was armed with a knife and a fake weapon, stabbed the victim more than forty times without displaying any kind of bias.

Furthermore, he did this without paying any mind to the frantic attempts of spectators to assist him despite the fact that he was armed with both of these items. The offender flashed the toy pistol in order to hamper rescue efforts, which allowed him to escape the area after finishing the assault, according to a local journalist who was photographing the incident and a shopkeeper who raced to aid a victim.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Both of these individuals were witnesses to the crime. Both of these persons have contributed to the dissemination of this knowledge. These statements made by eyewitnesses were supported by evidence that was obtained from surveillance footage captured by CCTV cameras located in the surrounding area as well as a video that was captured on the journalist’s mobile device.

These essential pieces of evidence were scrutinized and presented at various points over the course of the trial.

The prosecution submitted a significant amount of forensic and technological evidence in order to demonstrate that they were in compliance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Both digital certificates and recordings of gait analysis were included in this body of evidence. It was with the intention of establishing Chowdhury’s identification and demonstrating that he had the intent to carry out the assault on purpose that these pieces of evidence were acquired.

Because the court was informed that Chowdhury had obtained the knife and the toy gun in advance, it is possible to draw the conclusion that the criminal conduct was premeditated rather than an act of spontaneous activity. This is because the court was aware of the fact that Chowdhury had prepared for the criminal act.

After the lady’s death, it was found that she had 45 wounds, which were detected before she passed away. It was determined that a considerable number of these wounds were defensive injuries, meaning that she had sustained them as a result of having attempted to defend herself.

There was evidence to back up this claim, which was revealed in the results of the forensic examination. After reviewing the call detail records, it was discovered that Chowdhury had been harassing the victim on a consistent basis in the days preceding up to the murder.

The DNA tests and bloodstain examinations provided more evidence that Chowdhury was involved in the murder. These findings were disclosed by the research of the DNA.

Chowdhury argued, within the context of his appeal, that the prosecution had not conducted an investigation into all of the eyewitnesses that were available, that they had violated the chain-of-custody requirements by improperly admitting digital evidence, and that they had relied on gait analysis that was scientifically problematic.

All of these arguments were made in opposition to the prosecution’s decision to admit digital evidence. Both the fact that he had come from a relationship that had ended and the fact that he was just 21 years old at the time of the occurrence were cited as mitigating circumstances in favor of his claim that he had experienced a significant amount of emotional disturbance.

The High Court came to the conclusion that these claims against the defendant should be dismissed after determining that the testimony of the primary witnesses was consistent and credible.

Additionally, the High Court found that the legal protections for electronic evidence had been satisfied. In addition, the court did not rule against the admissibility of gait analysis for the purpose of investigation.

The court emphasized the fact that even in the absence of this component, the presentation of video and evidence from eyewitnesses was sufficient to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime. This demonstrated that the defendant was responsible for the crime.

At the moment when it was time for the bench to reach a judgment about Chowdhury’s sentence determination, they went through a thorough “balance sheet” exercise. The aggravating circumstances, such as the gratuitous savagery of the attack and the fact that it was public, needed to be weighed against the mitigating ones, which included Chowdhury’s age and the fact that he had never been in difficulty with the police in the past.

This was important in order to achieve the desired outcome. On the other hand, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the cumulative aggravating circumstances did not meet the threshold that had been set in past decisions regarding the subject of the death penalty.

Despite the fact that the lower court had determined that the offense was severe enough to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, this was the situation that arose. Additionally, there was a lack of evidence that could be considered definitive that Chowdhury’s mental health concerns rendered him irresponsible, and the fact that he was still a young person caused the court to be more lenient in its ruling. Both of these factors occurred simultaneously.

The judges came to the conclusion that life imprisonment should be the default punishment for murder convictions. They believed that the death penalty should only be reserved for the most terrible of crimes.

In order to achieve this goal, we relied heavily on major decisions that were handed down by the Supreme Court. The courts have the authority to alter the sentence in order to satisfy the expectations of society as well as the prospects for rehabilitation, and this authority exists even in circumstances in which the nature of the offender’s action is especially severe.

The decision was reached by the commission to replace Chowdhury’s death sentence with a particular life sentence, with the provision that he would not be eligible for any remission for a period of forty years beginning on the day he was arrested.

This decision was made as a consequence of the circumstances described above. It was determined that the individual who was found to be in possession of the imitation firearm was subject to a concurrent sentence of five years in jail in addition to a fine. This was in compliance with the Arms Act.

The High Court’s dedication to the idea of adequate punishment is not the only thing that this case demonstrates; it also emphasizes the thorough application of the concept of taking into consideration the “rarest of rare” while making decisions.

The Supreme Court took into consideration Chowdhury’s age as well as the possibility that he may be rehabilitated through the process of commuting the death penalty with a shorter sentence.

The court was able to find a balance between the gravity of the purposeful and horrific behavior that was carried out in a systematic manner as a result of this.

Despite the fact that the verdict makes it quite clear that even when intentional violence of this magnitude shocks the conscience of the court system, it does not inevitably carry with it the requirement of the death penalty. The reality is that this is the case even in the presence of significant mitigating variables.

After this, the death reference that was presented by the State and the cross-appeal that was presented by Chowdhury were both dismissed. Both of these submissions were denied.

Furthermore, the documents that were handed over to the trial court have been returned for the purpose of carrying out the adjustments that were made to the sentences.

Subordinate courts are provided with a clear roadmap for reviewing evidence, deciding whether or not to impose the death sentence, and determining the appropriate amount of punishment as a result of the verdict. In the realm of criminal justice, this is becoming increasingly prevalent, and it is in compliance with the constitutional rights that are guaranteed.