Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar
Aftab Alam – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The Death Reference has come up before this Court for confirmation of a death sentence awarded to the appellant by a judgment dated September 21, 2024, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 396, 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to death for commission of offence punishable under Section 396 of the IPC as well as to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC.
2. The appeal has been preferred by the convict against the self-same judgment and sentence.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that around 1:00 am on July 28, 2023, the appellant, along with five other co-accused persons, came to the house of the victims Mehtab and his wife Moumita.
4. Moumita was asleep in an adjacent room to that in which the deceased Mehtab was sleeping along with his two sons
The death penalty can be commuted to life imprisonment if mitigating factors outweigh aggravating circumstances, particularly demonstrating lack of premeditation or extreme brutality in the crime.
The court held that the death penalty is inappropriate for a first-time offender without prior convictions; life imprisonment is more suitable given mitigating circumstances.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.
The court upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
