Calcutta HC Commutes Death Sentence, Says Judges must not be ‘Bloodthirsty’

The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of Aftab Alam, convicted of killing his maternal uncle during a 2023 dacoity in Dhupguri, to life imprisonment, stressing that judges should not display a “bloodthirsty” approach to sentencing.

 

A Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar cited multiple Supreme Court rulings cautioning against capital punishment as a default. “Judges should never be bloodthirsty, and hanging of murderers has never been too good for them… The shift from ‘prisons’ to ‘correctional homes’ reflects a move from revenge to reform, based on the principle that one should hate the offence, not the offender,” the court said.

 

Brutal Crime but not ‘Rarest of the Rare’

Alam and five others were accused of attacking Mehtab, his wife Moumita, and their two sons at night. Mehtab was killed in front of his children, while Moumita, stabbed multiple times, survived by feigning death. Locals later detained the barefoot, bloodstained accused, who were identified by the survivors.

 

Based on Alam’s disclosure, police recovered weapons, bloodstained clothes, and ₹3,500 from Sonakhali forest. As the only adult accused -- the others being juveniles -- Alam was tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to death by the trial court.

 

However, the High Court upheld his conviction but replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment, ruling out remission for at least 20 years unless exceptional circumstances arise. The judges said the case did not meet the threshold of “rarest of the rare,” noting that the murder occurred in the context of dacoity and no separate motive for killing was proven.

 

Mitigating Factors Outweigh Aggravating Ones

The court cited Alam’s young age (22 at the time of the crime), absence of prior criminal record, and potential for reform as reasons to avoid the death penalty. It disagreed with the trial court’s characterisation of Alam as a “veteran criminal” who acted with “deliberate planning,” calling the operation “extremely unprofessional” and “immature.”

 

The High Court also dismissed the trial court’s reasoning that attacking relatives warranted capital punishment, noting that Alam had been living apart from his uncle’s family for years. It further questioned the trial judge’s interpretation of Alam’s alleged “lack of remorse” during proceedings, stating that courtroom demeanour alone could not determine irredeemability.

 

The court also acknowledged arguments from the anti-death penalty perspective, noting that a life sentence can serve as an equally effective deterrent, while preserving the chance for rehabilitation.

“Keeping on balance the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating factors in the present case, the mitigating circumstances win hands down,” the judgment said.

 

 For any enquiries please fill out this form, or contact info@thelawreporters.com  Follow  The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels