Calcutta High Court Records Highest Death Sentence Commutations in Six Years
In a significant judicial development, the Calcutta High Court rewrote 20 death sentence orders in 2025, marking the highest number of such commutations in the past six years. This represents a stark contrast to 2020, when only two death-penalty cases were heard by the court. The 2025 figures highlight a growing trend toward reducing capital punishment in India's legal system.
Detailed Breakdown of the 2025 Cases
Among the 20 cases disposed of by the High Court last year, the death sentences of 18 convicts were converted to life terms. Additionally, five individuals were acquitted, and one convict died in jail while their appeal was pending. Geographically, 16 of these cases were heard in Kolkata, with the remaining four handled by the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench.
Following Supreme Court Guidelines on Mitigating Factors
The High Court's decisions align with a broader trend displayed by the Supreme Court in recent years, which has increasingly converted capital punishment into life imprisonment. This shift stems from the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in the case of Manoj vs State of MP, which mandated trial courts to thoroughly analyse mitigating factors before awarding death sentences.
Key mitigating factors now considered include:
- The convict's psychiatric and psychological health
- Socio-economic background
- Age
- Possibility of reform
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of the 'rarest of rare' category, which previously allowed death penalties for exceptionally heinous, brutal, or revolting murders. This reinterpretation has led to more commutations.
Notable Cases from 2025
Suresh Paswan (45 years old): Convicted for raping and murdering a two-and-a-half-year-old in Kidderpore, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 50 years. The court considered his mild mental disability and very poor socio-economic background, noting he lived in a stable and had a life reeling under poverty since his father died before his birth.
Srimanta Tung (58 years old): Awarded the death penalty for raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl who worked at his home, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 20 years based on his age. A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi ruled that, according to Supreme Court guidelines, convicts who are too young or too old should not receive the death penalty.
Susanta Chowdhury (24 years old): His death penalty was converted to life imprisonment with no remission for 40 years after the High Court determined that his crime—stabbing his ex-girlfriend 45 times while pointing a toy gun at her—did not fall into the 'rarest of rare' category.
42-year-old Private Tutor: Convicted for brutally killing his father, mother, and sister, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The High Court stated, "Since we are unable to arrive at a finding that the convict is beyond reformation and that, taking into consideration the age of the convict as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents, we are not in a position to arrive at a finding that all other penalties apart from death penalty stand foreclosed... We deem it appropriate to commute the death penalty to one of life imprisonment."
Reasons Behind the Increased Case Disposals
Advocates have cited several reasons for the High Court disposing of such a large number of appeals in 2025. Previously, division benches were burdened with hearing anticipatory bail petitions alongside pleas against death penalty, life imprisonment, and seven-year jail terms. Following an intervention by the Supreme Court, the High Court allowed single-judge benches to handle anticipatory bail pleas, freeing up division benches to focus more time on other critical cases.
Expert Opinion on the Death Penalty
Senior advocate Kaushik Gupta shared his perspective with TOI, emphasizing the judiciary's awareness that death sentences may not align with civilized forms of punishment. He stated, "I am personally against death penalty. Our confinements for convicts are called correctional homes and not jail or prison, so why not give the convicts a chance to correct themselves?" This sentiment reflects a broader philosophical shift within the legal community toward rehabilitation over retribution.
The 2025 data from the Calcutta High Court underscores a transformative period in India's judicial approach to capital punishment, driven by Supreme Court mandates and a growing emphasis on humane considerations in sentencing.
