Judges should not exhibit a “bloodthirsty” approach, said the Calcutta High Court recently while commuting the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his maternal uncle to life imprisonment [Aftab Alam v. State].

Referring to multiple Supreme Court rulings, a Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar said,

"A word of caution was put in to the effect that Judges should never be bloodthirsty and hanging of murderers has never been too good for them ... The alteration of the names of jails from 'prisons' to 'correctional homes' in recent times is for a reason, reflecting the transition from the basic bloodthirsty instinct of society to take revenge to a more civilised policy of attempting to reform the accused, on the principle that one should hate the offence and not the offender."

The Court also took note of arguments made against the retention of death sentence as a form of punishment.

"The anti-death penalty camp argues that if deterrence is taken to be a reason of punishment, a lifetime of imprisonment is as good as a death sentence. Rather, a lifetime behind the bars, which denudes the convict of his freedom for his entire life, is a preferable form to punish him than death, which takes place in a flash," it was observed in the August 1 ruling.

The Court was dealing with a case concerning one Aftab Alam, who was found guilty along with five others for in 2023 dacoity-murder case from Dhupguri.

They were accused of attacking one Mehtab, his wife Moumita, and their two sons at night. Moumita, stabbed multiple times, feigned death and escaped, while Mehtab was killed in front of his children. Mehtab was the maternal uncle of Aftab Alam.

After the crime was committed, locals spotted and detained the barefoot, bloodstained accused persons, who were arrested and identified by the survivors.

Based on Alam's disclosure statements, police recovered weapons, clothes, and ₹3,500 from Sonakhali forest. The co-accused were juveniles, and Aftab Alam the only adult. Alam was tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to death by the trial court.

He filed an appeal challenging this verdict.

Since the trial court had delivered the death sentence, the case file was also placed before the High Court for the confirmation of the death penalty.

The High Court delivered its verdict in both matters on August 1, by which it upheld Alam's conviction but modified the trial court's sentence. It imposed life imprisonment on Alam instead of the death penalty.

It held that mitigating factors such as Alam's young age (22 years at the time of the crime), lack of proof of his having any criminal antecedents and the possibility of reformation with long imprisonment, were enough to rule out imposing the death penalty.

"Keeping on balance the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating factors in the present case, the mitigating circumstances win hands down," the Court said.

It disagreed with the trial court's finding that Alam had behaved like a "veteran criminal" and carried out the attack with deliberate planning, as there was no evidence to support such a finding.

"The concept of the appellant being a veteran criminal was entirely the brain-child of the learned Trial Judge, with due respect, since the planning behind the attempted dacoity in the present case was extremely 'unprofessional' (if one can use the expression in the context) and immature... the 'veteran criminal' angle and 'deliberate planning' is not reflected at all from the incident," the High Court said.

It also was not persuaded by the trial court's opinion that Alam deserved the death penalty because he had attacked relatives who had given him shelter. The High Court noted that Alam had been living separately for years. It added that this was not a "rarest of the rare" case to warrant to imposition of the death penalty.

"Although the brutality of the multiple stabbing cannot be denied at all, in the same breath, when resisted in dacoity, such brutality is not unheard of and cannot be classified as a “rare” event, let alone the “rarest of rare”. It is to be noted that no motive for murder, on a standalone footing without the intention of dacoity, has been established in the present case. Thus, the murder was in the context of dacoity," it said.

The High Court also questioned the basis on which the trial court presumed that Alam showed a "lack of remorse" for his actions during sentencing.

"To judge whether the appellant was himself a victim of society or a cornered animal defending himself during the trial is not clear to us ... At the stage of the trial, the alleged lack of remorse in the gestures and postures of the accused cannot be an indicator that he has reached such a brink of the abyss that he cannot be reformed further," the High Court said.

With these observations, the Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment without any option of early release from prison (remission) for at least 20 years, unless exceptional circumstances arise.

Advocates Arjun Chowdhury, Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Sunayana Parveen, Mantu Manda and Bappaditya Roy appeared for the convicted appellant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Nilay Chakraborty and Advocate Sourav Ganguly appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]