Case Name: State of West Bengal v. Radha Kanta Bera
Citation: Death Reference No. 02 of 2023 & Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2023
Court: Calcutta High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2025
Acts/Sections Referred: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 201; Constitution of India; “Rarest of Rare” doctrine
Case Type: Criminal Law / Murder / Death Penalty / Rarest of Rare / Witch Hunting
1. Introduction
The case of State of West Bengal v. Radha Kanta Bera concerned the brutal murder of an elderly woman of sixty-five years, Tarubala Bera, by her own grandson who had branded her a witch. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and awarded the death penalty. The matter came before the Calcutta High Court both as a mandatory death reference for confirmation of the sentence and as an appeal by the Appellant challenging the conviction and sentence. The central questions were whether the conviction founded on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence was sustainable beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category warranting capital punishment. The judgment is significant for its treatment of superstition-driven violence, the “rarest of rare” standard for the death penalty, and the circumstances in which courts may commute capital sentences to life imprisonment.
2. Summary of Facts
On 9 February 2017, in Jhargram district of West Bengal, the Appellant allegedly dragged the Victim, his own grandmother, from her home to a nearby Kali temple. The Appellant had branded the Victim a witch and blamed her for various misfortunes in the family. At the temple, in the presence of three direct eyewitnesses, the Appellant attacked the Victim with a sharp weapon and beheaded her, completely severing her head from her body. This act was allegedly carried out as a sacrificial offering to the deity. The three eyewitnesses were the Victim’s daughter, her husband, and her son-in-law, all of whom gave testimony during the trial.
Following the killing, the Appellant was seen carrying the severed head away from the scene. A First Information Report was registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Police investigation led to the recovery of both the severed head and the body near the temple. The post-mortem examination confirmed death by decapitation. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses including eyewitnesses, seizure witnesses, and the doctor who performed the autopsy. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 and sentenced him to death, while acquitting two co-accused persons. The Calcutta High Court heard the appeal and the mandatory death reference.
3. Issues Before the Court
(i) Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses and medical evidence of decapitation was sustainable beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) Whether the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category established by the Supreme Court to warrant imposition of the death penalty, or whether the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.
4. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable as all three witnesses were close relatives of the Victim with an interest in the outcome of the case. It was argued that there were inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and that the prosecution had failed to establish the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the question of sentence, the Appellant submitted that the death penalty should not be imposed, as there were mitigating factors including the possibility of rehabilitation and the Appellant’s background of superstitious beliefs prevalent in the community.
Arguments on behalf of the State:
The State contended that the eyewitness testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by the medical evidence of decapitation. The prosecution urged that the exceptional brutality of the crime, involving beheading an elderly grandmother in a public place in the name of superstition, placed the case in the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty.
5. Reasonings and Findings
The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the testimony of the three eyewitnesses was consistent and credible, corroborated by the unambiguous medical evidence of decapitation. The fact that all three witnesses were family members did not, by itself, render their testimony unreliable; courts apply the standard that interested witnesses’ testimony must be scrutinised carefully but need not be discarded merely on account of their relationship to the deceased.
On the critical question of the death penalty, the Court applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine established by the Supreme Court of India to determine whether capital punishment was justified. The Court acknowledged the exceptional brutality of the crime and the deep public revulsion it caused. However, the Court also considered the mitigating factor that the Appellant’s conduct was driven by deep-seated superstitious beliefs prevalent in certain communities, reflecting a social failure rather than pure depravity of character.
Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court concluded that while the crime was undoubtedly heinous, it did not fall within the absolute “rarest of rare” category that would warrant the irrevocable step of capital punishment. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, however remote, must weigh in favour of commutation.
6. Judgment and Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirms the high threshold of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and underscores the principle that courts must carefully balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before confirming a death sentence. It also reflects a judicial sensitivity to the role of social environment and superstitious beliefs in driving criminal conduct, without excusing the crime itself.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is the “rarest of rare” doctrine for the death penalty in India?
The “rarest of rare” doctrine, first articulated by the Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, holds that the death penalty should be imposed only in the most exceptional cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, having regard to the nature of the crime, the manner of its commission, and the character and circumstances of the offender.
Q2. What is a mandatory death reference?
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whenever a Sessions Court imposes a sentence of death, it is required to refer the case to the High Court for confirmation. The High Court must examine the case independently and either confirm the death sentence or modify it. This mandatory reference is a safeguard against wrongful execution.
Q3. What weight is given to eyewitness testimony from family members?
The testimony of family members who are eyewitnesses is not automatically discarded because of their relationship to the deceased. Courts scrutinise such testimony carefully for signs of exaggeration or fabrication, but if the testimony is found to be consistent, credible, and corroborated by other evidence, it may form the basis of conviction.
Q4. How does superstition-driven violence affect the sentencing decision?
While superstitious belief does not excuse violence or murder, courts may treat deep-seated community beliefs as a mitigating factor when determining whether the crime falls within the “rarest of rare” category. Courts recognise that such crimes may reflect social failure as well as individual culpability, which can weigh in favour of life imprisonment rather than death.
Q5. What is the significance of commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
Commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment reflects the court’s conclusion that the case does not meet the exceptional threshold required for capital punishment. It preserves the possibility of the offender’s eventual reformation and rehabilitation, however remote, and acknowledges the irreversibility of the death penalty.
