First death penalty, now life term sans remission for 30 years: What is this murder convict telling Supreme Court

The man before the bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh is one of the two convicts (the mother of the girl being the other one) who were given the death penalty by the trial court in the case.  On January 12, the bench issued notice on his plea to consider the quantum of sentence imposed on the convict.

The bench issued notice on his plea to consider the quantum of sentence imposed on the convict.

Love affair ends in child’s murder

The two convicts in the case, Mangala Goswami and her alleged lover Sanatan Goswami, were sentenced to death by the trial court in 2021.

The high court then commuted the death sentence of the convicts to life imprisonment observing that the state had failed to establish that the convicts cannot be reformed or rehabilitated.

“Since there are some mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellants and since the State has failed to discharged their obligation of establishing that the appellants cannot be reformed or rehabilitated, we are of the view that, the award of death penalty on the appellants should be commuted to life sentence”, the high court had held.

The high court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for a period of 30 years.

Sanatan moved the apex court challenging his conviction and sentence upheld under Section 302/120B IPC of the Indian Penal Code.

‘Socio-economic vulnerability’, ‘prejudicial environment’

The convict in his plea, filed through advocate Gopal Singh, has urged that the high court’s judgment was passed by relying on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses despite their admitted delay in disclosure, their failure to approach any authority at the time of the alleged events, and their coming forward only after the victim’s death and after extensive media attention.

Casting aspersions on the prosecution’s case, the convict has argued that it failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances necessary to sustain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.

In his plea, the convict pointed out that the essential final link that he alone could have caused the injuries is missing and that no reliable witness saw him inflicting any injury.

While contending against the high court’s affirmation on guilt, the plea states that the court erred in affirming guilt while acknowledging that the case was founded on circumstantial evidence without any direct proof.

“The High Court erred in affirming guilt while simultaneously acknowledging that the case is founded entirely on circumstantial evidence without any direct proof, and failed to apply the heightened scrutiny required in cases involving grave charges and severe sentences,” the plea reads.

Sanatan has highlighted elements that according to him were not considered by the high court which includes socio-economic vulnerability, the ‘prejudicial environment’ created by extensive media coverage, and the absence of effective legal representation.

The plea further challenges his conviction and sentence on the point that the findings of guilt were contrary to law, unsupported by credible evidence, and suffered from misapplication of settled principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

While submitting that his continued incarceration would result in irreparable harm, he averred that the continued incarceration resulted in financial and emotional hardship to his dependent family members.

“Petitioner’s continued incarceration has resulted in grave financial and emotional hardship to his dependent family members, a factor warranting humane consideration under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the plea read.

What is the law on remission?

The power of remission refers to the power to reduce the period of a sentence for a person who has been found guilty of a crime. Section 473 of the BNSS (and Section 432 of the CrPC) grants state governments the power to remit sentences “at any time”.

States can also choose whether to impose conditions that the convict must meet for her sentence to be remitted, such as agreeing to report to a police officer at regular intervals. If any of these conditions are not fulfilled, the provision states that the states may cancel the remission granted and arrest the convict again without a warrant.