From Death Penalty to Life Without Remission: Murder Convict Challenges Sentence in Supreme Court

A man convicted in the shocking Purulia needle murder case has approached the Supreme Court, challenging his sentence. Sanatan Goswami was initially sentenced to death by a trial court. The Calcutta High Court later commuted this to life imprisonment. However, it added a strict condition: no possibility of remission for thirty years.

The Gruesome Case and Initial Sentences

The case dates back to July 2017. A woman admitted her three-and-a-half-year-old daughter to a hospital in Purulia, West Bengal. She reported the child had a fever, cold, and cough. Doctors made a horrifying discovery. An X-ray revealed seven needles inserted inside the little girl's body. The child had multiple wounds and tragically died on July 21, 2017.

This became known as the Purulia needle murder case. In 2021, a trial court delivered a harsh verdict. It sentenced two individuals to death: the child's mother, Mangala Goswami, and her alleged lover, Sanatan Goswami.

The High Court's Modified Verdict

The Calcutta High Court reviewed the case. It decided to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment. The court noted the state failed to prove the convicts could not be reformed or rehabilitated. It acknowledged some mitigating circumstances in their favor.

Yet, the High Court imposed a severe restriction. It ruled that Sanatan Goswami could not apply for remission for a period of thirty years. Remission allows for the reduction of a sentence. This effectively means he must serve a minimum of three decades in prison before any plea for early release can be considered.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Now, Sanatan Goswami has taken his fight to the highest court. He has filed a plea challenging both his conviction and the sentence upheld under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh has taken note. On January 12, they issued a notice on his plea to consider the quantum of the sentence imposed.

In his petition, filed through advocate Gopal Singh, Goswami claims innocence. He argues the High Court judgment relied on flawed evidence. The plea points to delays in witness disclosure and their failure to approach authorities immediately after the alleged events. It contends the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

"The High Court erred in affirming guilt," the plea states. It argues the court acknowledged the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence without direct proof but failed to apply the required heightened scrutiny.

Key Arguments in the Challenge

The convict's petition raises several critical points:

It questions the reliability of prosecution witnesses who came forward only after extensive media coverage.
It argues the final link proving he alone could have caused the injuries is missing, with no reliable eyewitness.
It highlights socio-economic vulnerability and a prejudicial environment created by media attention as factors not properly considered.
It claims the findings of guilt are contrary to law and unsupported by credible evidence.
It emphasizes the financial and emotional hardship his incarceration causes his dependent family members, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution.

The plea asserts that his continued incarceration results in irreparable harm. It challenges the legal soundness of the conviction based on the appreciation of evidence.

Understanding the Law on Remission

Remission refers to the power to reduce a sentence for a convicted person. Under Indian law, specifically Section 473 of the BNSS (and Section 432 of the CrPC), state governments hold this power. They can remit sentences "at any time." States may impose conditions for remission, such as regular reporting to police. Failure to meet these conditions can lead to the cancellation of remission and re-arrest without a warrant.

The High Court's order denying remission for 30 years is a central part of this legal battle. Sanatan Goswami's appeal now puts the spotlight back on this tragic case. The Supreme Court's forthcoming consideration will determine whether the sentence stands or requires re-evaluation.