Kolkata | June 18, 2025
In a judgment that revisits the constitutional balance between punishment and human rights, the Calcutta High Court has commuted the death penalty of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a 2.5-year-old girl, citing mental health and socio-economic vulnerability as mitigating factors.
The two-judge bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that while the crime was undeniably heinous, it did not fulfill the threshold of “rarest of rare” required to justify the death penalty. The Court instead awarded life imprisonment without remission for 50 years, ensuring the convict, Suresh Paswan, will spend most of his remaining life behind bars.
Court’s Reasoning: Beyond the Crime
The Court acknowledged the brutality of the offense a crime committed against a defenseless child in 2013 but emphasized that sentencing must also weigh the convict’s personal circumstances and the broader principles of justice.
Some key observations:
• The convict suffered from mild cognitive impairment, as supported by medical assessments.
• He came from an extremely marginalized background, with limited education and no prior criminal record.
• There was no indication of premeditation or a pattern of similar behavior.
“While no punishment can truly match the horror of such an act,” the Court remarked, “the Constitution demands we judge not only the act, but the man behind it.”
From Trial to Appeal
Originally convicted by a trial court in 2019, Paswan had been sentenced to death under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 302, 376A, 364) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The High Court was hearing his appeal and the mandatory death sentence confirmation.
While upholding the conviction, the Bench modified the sentence to a life term without the possibility of parole or remission for 50 years, reflecting a serious punishment while steering clear of capital execution.
Legal & Social Significance
The judgment reinforces India’s judicial caution toward capital punishment, especially when multiple mitigating factors are at play. It also reflects a growing judicial trend of using long fixed-term life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty in borderline cases.
This decision could influence future sentencing in child sexual abuse cases, especially when the convict’s mental capacity or social context is demonstrably weak.
