Gourab Mondal @ Shanu vs State Of West Bengal

2026 INSC 184 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.20547/2025)

GOURAB MONDAL @ SHANU & ANOTHER APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein have impugned the final order

and judgment dated 31.01.2023 passed in CRA No.167 of 2020

by the High Court at Calcutta, by which it commuted the

award of death penalty to life imprisonment, however

without the possibility of remission till the end of the

appellants’ natural lives.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2014 at Signature Not Verified

NEETU SACHDEVA about 3:00 p.m., the appellants contacted the deceased Digitally signed by Date: 2026.02.24 16:37:28 IST Reason:

victim’s father, demanding ransom in exchange for the

1 victim’s return. The next day, i.e. on 14.12.2014, the

police arrested three persons including the appellants

herein and one juvenile. Based on their statements, the

police recovered the victim’s dead body from the bank of

the river Ganga, where it had been buried in a gunny bag.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under

Sections 363, 364A, 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) read with Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for

short, “POCSO Act”). The juvenile accused was sent to the

Juvenile Justice Board, Hooghly at Serampore but the

appellants herein faced trial before the Sessions Court in

accordance with law. Charges were later altered to include

common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The Sessions Court in S.T. (Spl.) No.26/15 on

22.10.2020 held that the appellants herein had kidnapped

the deceased-victim, raped and murdered her in furtherance

of their common intention and attempted to destroy

evidence by concealing the body. Accordingly, appellants

were found guilty under Sections 363/34, 364/34,

376(2)(i), 302/34, and 201 of the IPC read with Section 6

of the POCSO Act and sentenced them to death penalty.

2

5. Later, the Division Bench of the High Court vide the

impugned judgment commuted the award of death penalty to

life imprisonment, however without the possibility of

remission till the end of their natural lives. It is

pertinent to mention that on the date of the crime,

appellant No.1 was aged 22 years and appellant No.2 was

aged 19 years.

6. Notice was issued in this matter to the

respondent/State only insofar as the quantum of sentence

to be imposed on the appellants herein.

7. By way of the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, the

Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in CRA

No.167/2020, while commuting death penalty to life

imprisonment, also noted in Paragraph 105 that life

imprisonment ought to be without the possibility of

remission till the end of the appellant’s natural life.

For ease of reference, paragraph 105 of the impugned

judgment is extracted as under:

“In view of the State having failed to place any material to establish that the appellants cannot be reformed and are beyond scope of rehabilitation, the award of death penalty is commuted to one of life imprisonment. Keeping in view the brutality of the offence committed, it would be appropriate that, the appellants be

3 sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission till the end of their natural life.”

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, no

doubt, the High Court granted relief from death penalty;

however, it was still harsh in imposing the sentence of

life imprisonment inasmuch as it is without the

possibility of remission till the end of the appellant’s

natural life. That there are two disadvantages to the

appellants in this sentence inasmuch as firstly, the life

imprisonment is not for a fixed term but till the end of

the natural life of the appellants; and secondly, the

relief of possibility of remission is also taken away. In

the circumstances, it was contended that the High Court

was not justified in imposing a double hardship on the

appellants herein. It was contended that having regard to

the judgments of this Court in the case of Union of India

vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016)7 SCC 1 and Sukhdev

Yadav alia Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), (2025)

SCC OnLine SC 1671, this Court may modify the sentence

imposed on the appellants either by granting the

possibility of remission to them or by granting a fixed

term sentence as has been done in certain decisions of

this Court.

4

9. Ms. Shraddha Chirania, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of learned standing counsel for the

respondent/State submitted that despite the brutality of

the crime, the High Court has already granted relief to

the appellants herein by commuting the death penalty to

life imprisonment. The High Court taking note of the

manner in which the crime was committed by the appellants

herein, who were in their early twenties, was justified in

holding that the life imprisonment would be without the

possibility of remission till the end of their natural

life. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.

10. By way of response, learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that the appellants herein were in their early

twenties when the crime was committed. They have already

completed over eleven years of incarceration. They have a

long life to lead and if the relief of remission is also

taken away and they will be forced into completing their

life in jail. Then, the possibility of reformation is

given a go-bye. The right to remission is a constitutional

right as well as a statutory right. Therefore, the High

Court ought not to have taken away the possibility of

remission till the remainder of their natural life. In the

5 circumstances, this Court may modify the sentence of life

imprisonment to at least a fixed term of imprisonment so

that the appellants could have an opportunity of reform

and re-integrate into the society.

11. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar.

We have also noted the judgments of this Court in various

situations and having regard to the nature of crime, we

find that in the instant case, interest of justice would

be served by modifying the sentence imposed on the

appellants herein to life imprisonment, i.e., for a period

of twenty years without remission.

The Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

……………………………………………J. [UJJAL BHUYAN]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 18, 2026

6