Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUNIL DAS @ HARI CHARAN DAS @ HARI BABA @ SWARUP ROY @ GURUDEV, 2025

The judgment reinforces the duty of courts to protect vulnerable members of society from spiritual frauds and exploiters.

Calcutta High Court·24 September 2025
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUNIL DAS @ HARI CHARAN DAS @ HARI BABA @ SWARUP ROY @ GURUDEV, 2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Calcutta High Court

Date of Decision

24 September 2025

Judges

Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The accused, claiming to be a spiritual healer ("Gurudev"), took money from a family under the pretense of curing a young woman (F2) of burn injuries by performing rituals like Joggo and giving medicines.

  • The victims (F1 and F2) were found dead in their home under suspicious circumstances.

  • It was revealed that the accused mixed sedatives in a religious offering (Prasad) and administered it to the victims, rendering them unconscious.

  • He then murdered them—F1 was smothered, and F2 was strangled.

  • The accused had a history of extracting money from unsuspecting people using false claims of spiritual healing.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC?

  2. Whether the death penalty awarded by the trial court was appropriate or needed reconsideration?

  3. Whether the charge under Section 376 IPC (rape) could be sustained based on the evidence?

  4. Whether the accused was guilty of disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC?

Held

  • The accused is guilty under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

  • The Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 40 years from the date of arrest.

  • The court did not find guilty under Section 376 IPC (no evidence of sexual assault).

Analysis

  • The Court carefully evaluated the evidence, including witness testimonies (especially PW15, the victims' father), forensic reports, and recovered sedatives (Cetirizine, Alzolam).

  • It acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but applied Supreme Court guidelines on the rarest of rare doctrine, leading to commutation of the death penalty.

  • The Court emphasized the need for societal protection, given the accused’s pattern of exploitation.

  • The ruling reflects a balanced application of penal philosophy: punishment, deterrence, and the evolving stance on capital punishment.

  • The judgment reinforces the duty of courts to protect vulnerable members of society from spiritual frauds and exploiters.