“Previous Planning Is Utterly Absent”: Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Murder Of Maternal Uncle
The Calcutta High Court remarked that keeping on balance the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating factors in this case, the mitigating circumstances win hands down.
Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who was convicted for killing his maternal uncle and committing dacoity in his house at night.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by the convict against the Judgment of the Trial Court which awarded death penalty to him and convicted him under Sections 396, 397, and 398 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held, “Previous planning is utterly absent, as evident from the post-offence conduct of the accused persons in the present case, as discussed above. Although there was brutality and depravity in the crime, it has to be considered whether such depravity or brutality is of such an extreme or exceptional nature that the life of a person should be extinguished by handing out the death penalty.”
The Bench remarked that keeping on balance the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating factors in this case, the mitigating circumstances win hands down.
Advocate Arjun Chowdhury represented the Appellant/Convict while APP Nilay Chakraborty represented the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, at around 1:00 a.m. in July 2023, the Appellant-convict along with five other co-accused persons came to the house of the victims Mehtab and his wife Moumita. The wife was asleep in an adjacent room to that in which the deceased Mehtab was sleeping along with his two sons. Moumita suddenly woke up and found that the convict and one other male co-accused was looming over her. They allegedly inflicted several stab wounds with knives on her, upon which she feigned death. The said accused persons, thinking her to be dead, left her and went to the next room where all the assailants allegedly grabbed Mehtab and threatened his sons that they would meet the same fate if they created any trouble. Ultimately, they stabbed him several times and killed him. Moumita escaped through a window in her room and hid behind an adjacent wall. After some time, a ‘Dhalai’ party, which was returning from Jaigaon in a pickup truck, passed by, when Moumita called them.
At about 2:00 a.m., the Dhalai party found Moumita severely injured and bleeding and took her to a neighbour who then called one who drove her along with a man who was a part of the Dhalai party and owner of the van in which she was taken to the hospital. Other local people also accompanied them. The neighbours visited the place of occurrence and found Mehtab dead and his sons missing. Ultimately, it was found out that the two sons had taken shelter in the house of another neighbour. While returning from the hospital after getting Moumita admitted there, the passengers of the van stopped at a tea stall at Deomali, under Police Station-Dhupguri, when they noticed the accused persons coming barefoot in muddy apparel, their hands blood-stained and covered with handkerchiefs. Being suspicious, the passengers apprehended them and detained them at a hotel. The police was intimated and soon came to the spot and arrested the accused persons, taking them to the Police Station. The Appellant, being the only major among the accused persons, was tried separately and was ultimately convicted on all counts and sentenced to death.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “The Supreme Court observed that numerous other circumstances justify the passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing circumstances of aggravation. While holding so, it was observed that it cannot be over-emphasised that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them.”
The Court observed that the “position of trust” approach cannot be applied, since at the time of the offence, the Appellant was long gone from the shelter of his uncle and was no longer under the tutelage of the victim and thus, the ‘betrayal’ angle, per se, does not justify 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 Court further remarked that the concept of the Appellant being a veteran criminal was entirely the brain-child of the Trial Judge, with due respect, since the planning behind the attempted dacoity in this case was extremely “unprofessional” (if one can use the expression in the context) and immature.
“As the turn of events went, the appellant, along with other five co accused, resided for some days in the vicinity of the PO in a hotel where at least the appellant checked in with his own Aadhar Card, which no “veteran criminal” would ever do”, it added.
The Court also said that no mens rea of the Appellant to murder the victim in such a brutal manner by multiple stabs, as established by the prosecution case, has been established and thus, it was not a murder with vengeance for its own sake, but a spontaneous reaction, may be due to the unprofessionalism of the accused persons, five of whom were minor and the Appellant a borderline major.
“Hence, the “veteran criminal” angle and “deliberate planning” is not reflected at all from the incident. … Moreover, the accused persons, after the offence, went and hid the weapons, along with certain clothes and a meagre amount of Rs. 3,500/-, in a nearby forest. The peculiar part is that thereafter, instead of fleeing the place and going back to Delhi, they chose to saunter back casually towards Deomali, which is close to the PO, in open view of all, so that they could be conveniently nabbed and arrested. This aspect of the matter strikes any reasonable man and clearly defies the theory that the accused persons were veteran criminals or meticulously and deliberately planned the dacoity. Rather, the spontaneous nature of the offence indicates lack of planning and impulsive behaviour”, it noted.
Moreover, the Court observed that no previous criminal antecedents of the Appellant were at all proved, either in the trial or even at the stage of sentencing and thus, such finding regarding previous criminal antecedents of the Appellant was perverse.
“We are entirely unaware, at least from the materials on record, as to what financial situation or social condition the appellant was going through immediately prior to the offence. The reasons for his 2025:CHC-JP:149-DB moving to Delhi from the victims‟ house and staying there remain unexplained. We are totally in the dark about the present living conditions of the appellant. Thus, the “lack of remorse”, read by the trial court into the eyes of the appellant or into his postures, might merely be the result of the hardened and jaded mind of a person who has barely crossed the threshold of majority and is confronting the world on his own, and may not be actual lack of remorse at all”, it remarked.
Conclusion
The Court further noted that the young age of the convict is another mitigating factor which precludes awarding death sentence.
“Putting on balance, one of the aggravating circumstances could be if the murder was committed after previous planning and involved extreme brutality or exceptional depravity”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the pre-conceived notions with which the Trial Judge approached the sentencing process cannot be a reasonable basis of granting the death sentence to the Appellant.
“In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the death sentence handed down to the appellant should be commuted. … the death sentence awarded in the impugned judgment in view of the offence committed under Section 396 to the appellant is commuted to life sentence for the rest of his life, without any option of premature release for 20 years, unless exceptional circumstances are made out to the satisfaction of the concerned court”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Appeal, confirmed the conviction, and commuted the death sentence.
Cause Title- Aftab Alam v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-JP:149-D)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Arjun Chowdhury, Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Sunayana Parveen, Mantu Manda, and Bappaditya Roy.
Respondent: APP Nilay Chakraborty and Advocate Sourav Ganguly.
