Not Justice to Quench Thirst for Blood: Calcutta HC Commutes Death Penalty In Dacoity-Murder Case

In a significant ruling on capital sentencing, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of Aftab Alam for dacoity with murder in the 2023 Dhupguri killings, but commuted the death penalty imposed by the trial court to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, with a bar on premature release for 20 years.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar delivered the judgment on August 1, 2025, in a death reference and appeal filed by Alam against the trial court’s decision.

The prosecution case arose from the events of July 28, 2023, when Alam and five others allegedly entered the Dhupguri home of Mehtab and his wife Moumita around 1:00-1:30 a.m., armed with sharp weapons.

According to Moumita, who survived by feigning death, the assailants grievously injured her before fatally stabbing Mehtab in the presence of their two sons, aged nine and thirteen.

The children, Ayan and Rehan, later identified Alam in a test identification parade and in court, stating that he was a known relative. Local witnesses testified that Alam was apprehended near Deomali while returning from the hospital, and police subsequently recovered weapons and cash from the Sonakhali forest on August 8, 2023, allegedly following his disclosure while in custody.

The trial court convicted Alam under Sections 396, 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to death for the Section 396 offence and imposing concurrent terms of rigorous imprisonment for the other counts, along with fines.

In appeal, the defence attacked the prosecution’s case on several grounds: that the child witnesses were tutored; that contradictions and collateral discrepancies undermined the testimony; that the test identification parade was vitiated by prior media exposure; that the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was inadmissible as there was no contemporaneous written disclosure; and that the case did not qualify as “rarest of the rare” under the Bachan Singh framework.

The State countered that the injured eyewitness account of Moumita, corroborated by her sons and independent witnesses, was cogent; that identification was reliable given Alam’s prior acquaintance with the family and that the recovery was lawful, with seizure witnesses corroborating the investigating officer’s version.

The High Court, after closely examining the evidence, found the discrepancies cited by the defence to be minor and collateral, insufficient to dislodge the overall consistency of the prosecution narrative.

The testimonies of the two child witnesses were accepted as credible, their accounts being vivid and corroborated by Moumita.

The court noted that the identification was natural, as Alam was known to the family, and found the recovery admissible under Section 27, holding that the investigating officer’s oral testimony, supported by a marked exhibit and witness signatures on the seizure list, satisfied the statutory requirement.

Citing authorities including Dattu Ramarao Sakhare and Panchhi on child witness reliability, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh on knowledge of concealment, and distinguishing Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar on disclosure evidence, the Bench affirmed the conviction on all counts.

On sentencing, however, the Court diverged from the trial court.

Applying the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh, it reiterated that the death penalty is reserved for cases where aggravating factors so outweigh mitigating circumstances that reformation is impossible.

Here, while the crime was brutal, the Court found that Alam was a young man of about 22 years with no proven prior criminal antecedents; the prosecution had not demonstrated that he was beyond reformation; there was no clear proof of elaborate prior planning or exceptional depravity beyond the inherent gravity of the offence; and several co-accused were minors.

The trial court’s heavy reliance on betrayal of trust and unproven antecedents was held insufficient to bring the case within the “rarest of the rare” category.

The Court emphasised that mere brutality in commission does not mandate capital punishment absent the extraordinary circumstances envisaged in Bachan Singh. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Bench held that “the mitigating circumstances win hands down” and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of Alam’s natural life, subject to a 20-year bar on premature release except in exceptional cases to be determined by a competent court.

The fines were set aside, noting Alam’s non-local residence and lack of proven means, and the sentences were directed to run concurrently with set-off for time already spent in custody.

Case title: Aftab Alam v. State of West Bengal

Date of judgment: August 1, 2025

Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar