Death Sentence Commuted to Life for Dacoity-Murder; Mitigating Factors Outweigh 'Rarest of Rare' Claim: Calcutta High Court - 2025-09-14

Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Dacoity-Murder Case, Citing Lack of 'Rarest of Rare' Elements

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of Aftab Alam, convicted for a brutal dacoity and murder, to life imprisonment, emphasizing that mitigating factors such as his young age and the absence of proven criminal antecedents outweighed the aggravating circumstances of the crime. A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar upheld Alam's conviction under Sections 396, 397, and 398 of the Indian Penal Code but ruled that the case did not fall into the "rarest of the rare" category required to justify capital punishment.

The court stipulated that Alam must serve a minimum of 20 years in prison without the possibility of premature release.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case stemmed from a horrifying incident on July 28, 2023, when Aftab Alam, along with five juvenile co-accused, broke into the home of his maternal uncle, Mehtab. The assailants brutally stabbed Mehtab's wife, Moumita, who survived by feigning death. They then proceeded to murder Mehtab by stabbing him multiple times in front of his two young sons, aged 9 and 13.

Following the crime, a group of locals returning from work apprehended the accused, who appeared suspicious with blood-stained hands and muddy clothes. The police were informed, leading to their arrest. Weapons used in the crime were later recovered from a forest based on information provided by Alam. A trial court subsequently convicted Alam and, citing the "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and diabolical" nature of the crime and betrayal of trust, sentenced him to death.

---

Key Arguments in Court

• Appellant's Arguments: Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, representing Aftab Alam, mounted a robust challenge against both the conviction and the sentence. The defense highlighted numerous alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the surviving victim Moumita and the locals who apprehended the accused. It was argued that the evidence of the two minor sons was unreliable as they were susceptible to being tutored. The defense also contested the legality of the weapon recovery process, claiming it violated Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and alleged that the seizure witnesses were "planted" by the police. Crucially, the defense argued that the death sentence was unwarranted as the crime, while brutal, did not meet the "rarest of the rare" threshold and the trial court failed to consider the possibility of reformation.

• State's Arguments: The state, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, countered that any inconsistencies in witness accounts were minor and did not undermine the core narrative. The prosecution emphasized the high evidentiary value of the testimony from Moumita, an injured eyewitness, and asserted that the child witnesses were found competent and credible by the trial judge. The state maintained that the weapon recovery was legally sound and that the overall evidence, including the eyewitness accounts, conclusively proved Alam's guilt. The prosecution supported the death penalty, citing the heinousness of the act.

---

High Court's Analysis and Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and arguments, bifurcating its judgment into two parts: conviction and sentencing.

On Conviction: The bench found no reason to interfere with the trial court's finding of guilt. It concluded that the chain of events was firmly established through the corroborative testimonies of three eyewitnesses—Moumita and her two sons—and several other witnesses from the locality. The court dismissed the alleged discrepancies as "mostly on collateral factors" that did not "hit at the root of the prosecution case."

"A comprehensive reading of the entire deposition indicates that the discrepancies were mostly on collateral factors... Even in instances where there are certain discrepancies, either they are minor in nature or the fact sought to be proved by such discrepant portions of the deposition is heavily corroborated by the other witnesses and evidence."

The court also upheld the legality of the weapon recovery, noting that the Investigating Officer's testimony was reliable and the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were substantially met.

On Sentencing: The court's most significant intervention came on the question of the death penalty. Relying heavily on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab , the bench undertook a detailed balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It systematically dismantled the trial court's justifications for awarding capital punishment.

The High Court observed: * Lack of Pre-Planning: The post-offence conduct of the accused—checking into a hotel with an Aadhar card and casually walking near the crime scene—"clearly defies the theory that the accused persons were veteran criminals or meticulously and deliberately planned the dacoity." * No Proven Criminal Antecedents: The trial court's finding that Alam had criminal antecedents was deemed "perverse," as it was based on unsubstantiated submissions by the prosecutor at the sentencing stage without any evidence on record. * Possibility of Reformation: The court noted Alam's young age (22) and the State's failure to provide any evidence proving that he was beyond reformation, a key test established in Bachan Singh . * Liberal Construction of Mitigating Factors: Quoting the landmark judgment, the bench reiterated that "the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction."

---

Final Verdict

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the mitigating circumstances "win hands down" when weighed against the aggravating factors. While confirming the conviction, the court commuted the death sentence for the offence under Section 396 IPC to "life sentence for the rest of his life, without any option of premature release for 20 years." The sentences for the other offences under Sections 397 and 398 IPC will run concurrently. The fine imposed by the trial court was set aside.