Introduction:

The case of The State of West Bengal v. Sunil Das @ Hari Charan Das @ Hari Baba @ Swarup Roy @ Gurudev came before the Calcutta High Court, where a division bench of Justices Debangu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi was tasked with reviewing a conviction and sentence of death awarded to an alleged “Gurudev” accused of murdering two women over monetary disputes. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant, who posed as a spiritual healer, promised cures and divine blessings to a family in exchange for large sums of money. When the promised “miracles” failed and the victims demanded repayment, he allegedly administered sedatives disguised as “prasad” during a ritual (Joggo), rendering the women unconscious, before killing them through smothering and throttling. While the trial court imposed the death penalty, the High Court, after examining the circumstances and applying Supreme Court guidelines on the rarest of rare doctrine, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 40 years. The Court underscored that while the crime was heinous and the appellant had exploited people’s faith for monetary gain, the case did not merit the death penalty, but society must still be protected from the offender for a significant period.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The prosecution constructed its case by relying on both direct and circumstantial evidence. It argued that the appellant, posing as a Gurubaba, had systematically exploited the family’s vulnerability. PW15, the husband of one of the victims and father of the other, testified that he had first encountered the appellant during travel, where the latter convinced him that spiritual practices could heal his daughter’s burn injuries. The appellant allegedly demanded a large sum of ₹1,61,000 for puja, rituals, medicines, and Joggo, of which ₹83,000 to ₹84,000 had already been paid. When the family began demanding accountability and repayment, the appellant allegedly planned the murders to eliminate opposition and instill fear. The prosecution stressed that evidence showed the victims were given cashew paste laced with sedatives, as confirmed by the recovery of unused strips of Cetirizine and Alzolam on the appellant’s disclosure. The women were later found tied, gagged, and smothered to death. The autopsy corroborated this account, pointing to death by throttling and gagging.

The prosecution further highlighted the appellant’s past pattern of behavior, where he repeatedly extracted money from unsuspecting individuals by exploiting their faith and desperation. It emphasized that the murders were not only premeditated but also committed under the guise of a spiritual ritual, betraying the victims’ trust in the most inhumane way. The prosecution argued that such actions merited the death penalty under Section 302 IPC, as the case fell within the framework of the rarest of rare doctrine. The deliberate planning, the abuse of trust, the use of intoxicants, and the calculated execution of the murders were all cited to underline the appellant’s dangerousness to society. Moreover, the prosecution submitted that a strong deterrent message was necessary to curb such exploitative practices masquerading as spiritual guidance. It urged the Court not to interfere with the trial court’s decision of capital punishment, arguing that justice for the victims required the ultimate penalty.

Arguments of the Defense:

The defense, while acknowledging the gravity of the crime, urged the Court to reconsider the death penalty. It contended that the trial court had erred in imposing capital punishment without sufficiently weighing the mitigating circumstances. The defense emphasized the appellant’s age and argued that the possibility of his reformation could not be completely ruled out. It claimed that while the evidence suggested involvement in the deaths, the chain of circumstances did not conclusively prove that the appellant intended to murder the women, but rather suggested an attempt to incapacitate them temporarily. They argued that the act, though resulting in death, may not necessarily be categorized as a rarest of rare case deserving execution.

The defense also challenged the reliability of witness testimony, particularly that of PW15, on grounds of bias and personal vendetta since the appellant’s promises failed to materialize. They sought to cast doubt on the prosecution’s theory of deliberate poisoning and premeditated murder, suggesting instead that the deaths may have been accidental due to excessive sedation. Further, the defense pointed to the appellant’s family responsibilities and argued that life imprisonment with the possibility of reformation would serve justice without resorting to the irreversible step of execution. In essence, their plea was for the Court to balance retribution with compassion, and to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Court’s Judgment:

The Calcutta High Court, after carefully considering the arguments and scrutinizing the evidence, upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, while setting aside charges under Section 376 IPC due to lack of evidence of sexual assault. The division bench emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the murders—such as the use of sedative-laced prasad, the victims being found gagged and tied, and the autopsy findings—left no reasonable doubt about the appellant’s culpability. The Court concurred with the trial court’s conclusion that the appellant had orchestrated the killings as a means to avoid refunding money and to terrorize the victims’ family.

However, on the question of sentence, the High Court invoked the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the rarest of rare doctrine. It observed that while the crime was heinous, exploitative, and calculated, the circumstances did not meet the strict threshold for imposing the death penalty. The Court stressed that capital punishment must be reserved for cases where the crime is so diabolical and barbaric that no other punishment would suffice. Taking into account the appellant’s age and the broader principle that life imprisonment is the norm while death penalty is the exception, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 40 years.

The bench also highlighted the need to protect society from individuals like the appellant, who habitually prey on vulnerable people’s faith and extract money under false pretenses. By ensuring that the sentence would last effectively for the majority of the appellant’s life, the Court struck a balance between punishment and deterrence, while upholding constitutional principles regarding the sparing use of capital punishment. The Court noted that remission was not to be granted, making it clear that the appellant must remain incarcerated for at least 40 years from the date of his arrest.

In conclusion, while the High Court firmly upheld the conviction for double murder, it softened the sentence from death to rigorous life imprisonment of 40 years without remission. The judgment underscores both the gravity of exploiting religious faith for financial and criminal gain and the judiciary’s cautious approach toward imposing capital punishment.