Calcutta High Court, citing that judges shouldn’t be bloodthirsty, commutes the death sentence to a life term in a Jalpaiguri murder case, emphasizing reform over retribution in sentencing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: In a landmark judgment, the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court recently commuted the death sentence of Aftab Alam, convicted for the murder of his maternal uncle, to life imprisonment without the possibility of premature release for 20 years, except under exceptional circumstances.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Decide: Can Murder Convict Serve Consecutive Life Sentences?
Background
Aftab Alam was convicted by the Jalpaiguri Sessions Court under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his maternal uncle during a dacoity on July 28, 2023, in Dhupguri, Jalpaiguri district, along with five others. The trial court had awarded him the death penalty, deeming the case to be sufficiently grave.
However, on appeal, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya emphasized a reformative and humane approach to punishment, aligning with evolving global and Indian standards in penology.
Arguments by the Parties
Defence:
Argued there was no evidence of premeditation or brutality warranting a death sentence. Also highlighted was Alam’s young age and the court’s failure to consider the possibility of reformation.
ALSO READ: Honeymoon Horror: Court Extends Remand of Wife & Lover in Businessman’s Murder Case
State Prosecution:
Asserted that the crime was heinous and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, deserving capital punishment.
Court’s Observation
The court found no evidence to establish that Alam was beyond reform, and also dismissed the “position of trust” or “betrayal” angle as insufficient to trigger the death sentence.
While upholding Alam’s conviction, the High Court questioned the necessity of the death penalty in this case, drawing from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which laid down the “rarest of the rare” doctrine for capital punishment.
Justice Bhattacharyya noted,
“Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them.”
ALSO READ: Nitish Katara Murder Case || Supreme Court Grants 3-Month Furlough to Sukhdev Yadav
The Court elaborated on the three cardinal pillars of punishment: retribution, deterrence, and reformation.
“Whereas deterrence still holds good as a justification, retribution has gradually given way to the reformatory aspect of penalties in modern criminal jurisprudence, both in India and elsewhere.”
Justice Bhattacharyya further reasoned that the irreversibility of capital punishment is a major concern in criminal justice:
“Even if new evidence emerges, there would be no chance of bringing back a life that has already been taken.”
Bench:
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Justice Uday Kumar
Appearance:
For the appellant:
Dr. Arjun Chowdhury,
Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury,
Ms. Sunayana Parveen,
Mr. Mantu Manda,
Mr. Bappaditya Roy
For the State:
Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. APP.,
Mr. Sourav Ganguly
Case Title:
Aftab Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal
D.R. No. 5 of 2024 With CRA (DB) 10 of 2025 With CRA (DB) 20 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Murder
