Dhananjoy Chaterjee vs State of W.B.

Citation	1994 SCR (1) 37
Appellant	DHANANJOY CHATERJEE
Respondent	STATE OF W.B.
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment	11/01/1994
Hon'ble Bench	ANAND, A.S. (J) SINGH N.P. (J)

INTRODUCTION:

Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal is a landmark case in Indian legal history, shaping the application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine for capital punishment. The case arose from rape and murder of 18-year-old Hetal Parekh in Kolkata by Dhananjoy, a 24-year-old security guard. He was charged under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 380 (theft). The Sessions Court convicted him on all counts, awarding the death sentence for murder. The Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence, relying solely on circumstantial evidence, which was found consistent and conclusive. Dhananjoy’s execution on 14 August 2004 marked the first in India in the 21st century, making the case a significant precedent on the evidentiary standards and judicial reasoning for capital punishment.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Hetal Parekh, an 18-year-old student, was found dead in her flat (No. 3A,” Anand Apartment”) on the evening of 5th March, 1990. She was raped and brutally murdered. Dhananjoy was a security guard of that same building. Previously, Hetal complained to her parents that Dhananjoy repeatedly taunted her and asked her out. After the family complained (on 4th March,1990), Dhananjoy was transferred to another apartment (Paras Apartment) effective 5th March. However, he remained on duty at Anand Apartment on the morning of 5th March.

·         5th March,1990: The victim’s father and brother left for their business and college in the morning, respectively, and the mother left for a temple around 5:20 p.m. Hetal was alone in her flat. Shortly thereafter, Dhananjoy went to Hetal’s flat under the pretence of making a phone call. He came down only after the supervisor called out his name and left after a few words with him. Around 6:05 p.m., Hetal’s mother returned and found the door locked. The lock of the door was broken open by neighbours, and she discovered Hetal’s body in the bedroom. Hetal’s skirt and blouse had been pulled up, and her private parts and breasts were visible. Patches of blood were near her head as well as on the floor. There were bloodstains on her hands and vagina also. Some marks of violence and blood were found on her face as well. Medical personnel pronounced Hetal dead.

·         INVESTIGATION: Later, Police arrived at the scene and recovered items from the flat (blood-stained soil, torn clothing, etc.) as evidence. Forensic reports confirmed that Hetal was raped before death. The doctor found 21 injuries, a torn hymen with fresh blood, blood on her vagina and pubic hair, and a fractured hyoid bone (consistent with strangulation). According to the report of a Senior Scientific Officer, semen was detected on the undergarment and the pubic hair of the deceased. The presence of bloodstains, marks of violence on the face of the deceased and the state of her clothes indicated that the victim had offered resistance but was helpless.

·         SUSPECT FLEES: After this incident, Dhananjoy didn’t report to “Paras Apartment” and disappeared. He neither collected his wages nor answered calls. Despite multiple raids, Dhananjoy remained at large. On 12th May,1990, he was arrested in his village. According to a confession (under Sec. 27, Indian Evidence Act), police recovered the stolen wristwatch of Hetal’s mother and the actual shirt and trousers he had been wearing.

·         TRIAL AND CONVICTION: During the trial, Dhananjoy pleaded innocence; he was allegedly falsely implicated. He claimed that after duty, he went to watch a movie and left for his village to attend a ceremony. Although he could not produce any evidence supporting his claim. The Sessions Judge convicted him of murder (IPC 302, death sentence), rape (IPC 376, life imprisonment), and theft (IPC 380, 5 years rigorous imprisonment). The High Court affirmed these findings and maintained the death penalty.

ISSUES RAISED:

The Supreme Court’s review focused on several key questions:

• Identification and Evidence: Was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chatterjee was the assailant who raped and murdered Hetal Parekh?

• FIR and Procedure: Was the victim’s mother’s recorded statement, made after phoning the police, to be treated as the “First Information Report” (FIR) under CrPC 154, or was there a procedural error in how the crime was reported and investigated?

• Sentencing: Considering (if convicted) whether the death sentence should be upheld. Specifically, did this case qualify as a “rarest of the rare” case under Bachan Singh v. Punjab (1980) and related precedent? Were there any mitigating factors (e.g. the accused’s age, background, etc.) that might counsel life imprisonment instead of death?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

Dhananjoy (through counsel) advanced a defence of complete non-involvement. He denied all the accusations and offered an alibi. He explained that on 5th March, after completing his duty at Anand Apartment, he went to a cinema to watch a movie and thereafter purchased some fruits and left for his village to attend his brother’s thread ceremony. He alleged that he was falsely implicated due to a dispute with the victim’s father over his job transfer. Dhananjoy also refuted any links between the seized watch and clothing and the crime. He pointed out that no one saw him commit the crime and emphasised his alibi. His counsel urged that Section 235(2) CrPC should be read with a humane approach. In sum, the defence argued, Dhananjoy’s alleged crime was not proved; in any event, he should be spared the extreme penalty in favour of a life term.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

In contrast, the State emphasised the evidence that overwhelmingly pointed to Dhananjoy’s guilt. It relied on forensic findings (semen and blood indicating rape and violent struggle) and the recovery of stolen property from the accused’s home as confirming his identity as the attacker. The prosecution also highlighted the opportunity and motive, and the continuous harassment of the victim by Dhananjoy. After the crime, Dhananjoy ignored his duty and absconded, which shows a consciousness of guilt. As for sentencing, the State urged that the crime’s extreme brutality and breach of public trust (a security guard preying on a defenceless young girl) left no room for leniency.  Learned counsel for the State argued that this was a paradigmatic “rarest of the rare” case, with no mitigating circumstances. The death penalty, it was submitted, would serve as a deterrent to similarly depraved offenders. In the words used by the Court (adopting the State’s emphasis), the offense was “not only inhuman and barbaric but a ruthless crime of rape followed by cold blooded murder” of a helpless girl, which demands the maximum punishment.

JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the death sentence. Justice Anand, writing for the Court, reviewed the evidence and the law carefully:

·         Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence: The Court applied the strict test for circumstantial evidence, requiring an unbroken chain of facts consistent only with the accused’s guilt. It found every link established. For example, the liftman’s testimony, though he later “turned hostile,” had originally placed Dhananjoy going up to flat 3-A on the night of the murder. Witnesses (fellow guards) credibly testified that Dhananjoy was present at Anand Apartment and that he evaded his supervisor’s questions by slipping away (fleeing out the gate) rather than comply with duty orders. PW8 (liftman) corroborated that, shortly before Hetal’s mother returned, he had taken Dhananjoy to her flat, claiming he needed to make a phone call. Dhananjoy’s panicked behaviour and disappearance raised eyebrows too. This absence was held to be a “material circumstance” consistent only with guilt. The recovered physical evidence sealed the conclusion: Dhananjoy led police to find the victim’s stolen wristwatch and his blood-stained shirt and trousers hidden in his house. The Court found no evidence which led to Dhananjoy’s innocence in any manner and therefore the Court upheld his conviction under IPC 302, 376 and 380.

·         First Information Report (FIR): Dhananjoy’s counsel had argued that the initial telephonic report and the subsequent recorded statement of the victim’s mother were improperly treated. The High Court had opined that the brief phone message was the first report, but the Supreme Court disagreed. It clarified that the police only began the investigation after taking the mother’s formal statement; therefore, that recorded statement constituted the FIR under CrPC 154. The earlier “cryptic” call simply alerted them to rush to the scene. This procedural point did not affect the verdict; it only corrected the record of how the case was registered.

·         Sentencing – “Rarest of Rare”:  Invoking Section 235(2) CrPC and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Court reaffirmed that the death penalty is to be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. Here, no mitigating circumstances were found, while the aggravating ones were overwhelming. The accused, a 24-year-old security guard, raped and strangled an 18-year-old schoolgirl in a premeditated, cold-blooded, and barbaric manner. The Court noted that the victim was helpless and under the accused’s supposed protection. There was no provocation or loss of temper—only a calculated, savage act that shocked the judicial conscience. It held that the brutality and betrayal of trust ruled out any chance of reform. Upholding the State’s view, the Court concluded that no punishment short of the death penalty was appropriate. Thus, the death sentence was confirmed, and the concurrent sentences for rape and theft were deemed of academic interest.

·         Ratio Decidendi: The Court based its decision on two principles: first, that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the chain of facts must be complete and point only to the accused’s guilt, which it found satisfied here. Second, under Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the death penalty is warranted only in the “rarest of rare” cases. Given the premeditated, brutal rape and murder of a helpless girl, and the complete absence of mitigating factors, the Court held the crime shocked the judicial conscience and affronted societal dignity, thus justifying the confirmation of the death sentence.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court dismissed Dhananjoy’s appeal and upheld the death sentence. It concluded that the prosecution had irrefutably proved his guilt by circumstantial evidence, and that the crime’s heinousness left no alternative penalty. This decision illustrates the Court’s adherence to strict evidentiary standards for circumstantial cases and its rigorous application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine to capital punishment. The judgment has been cited in discussions on the limits of the death penalty and the need to balance human dignity with society’s demand for justice. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee’s case, after exhausting legal remedies, the death sentence was eventually carried out on 14 August 2004. The case remains a notable example in Indian law of how the courts weigh the evidence and the nature of the crime in upholding the ultimate punishment.