Latest news with #SabyasachiBhattacharyya
New Indian Express
07-08-2025
- New Indian Express
Calcutta HC says judges shouldn't be bloodthirsty, commutes death sentence to life term in murder case
KOLKATA: Observing that judges should never be "bloodthirsty", the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court has ordered commutation of the death sentence of a man to life imprisonment for the murder of his maternal uncle. Passing the judgment, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya said that the evolution of society has been towards a reformative approach towards penology, as opposed to a retributive approach. "There are three cardinal pillars of punishment -- retribution, deterrence and reformation. Whereas deterrence still holds good as a justification, retribution has gradually given way to the reformatory aspect of penalties in modern criminal jurisprudence, both in India and elsewhere," the court said. Justice Bhattacharyya commuted the death sentence awarded to Aftab Alam by the Jalpaiguri sessions court for committing offence under Section 396 (dacoity with murder) 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 court concerned. "Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them," Justice Bhattacharyya observed.
Hindustan Times
07-08-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC says judges shouldn't be bloodthirsty, commutes death sentence to life term in murder case
Kolkata, Observing that judges should never be "bloodthirsty", the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court has ordered commutation of the death sentence of a man to life imprisonment for the murder of his maternal uncle. HC says judges shouldn't be bloodthirsty, commutes death sentence to life term in murder case Passing the judgment, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya said that the evolution of society has been towards a reformative approach towards penology, as opposed to a retributive approach. "There are three cardinal pillars of punishment retribution, deterrence and reformation. Whereas deterrence still holds good as a justification, retribution has gradually given way to the reformatory aspect of penalties in modern criminal jurisprudence, both in India and elsewhere," the court said. Justice Bhattacharyya commuted the death sentence awarded to Aftab Alam by the Jalpaiguri sessions court for committing offence under Section 396 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 court concerned. "Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them," Justice Bhattacharyya observed. Upholding the conviction of Alam by the trial court for the murder of his maternal uncle at Dhupguri in Jalpaiguri district on July 28, 2023, while committing dacoity at his house along with five other associates, Justice Bhattacharyya, while passing the judgment earlier this week, said that the crime does not fall under the 'rarest of the rare' category. Noting that in a landmark judgment in 1980 by the Supreme Court in the Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab case, a word of caution was put in, to the effect that "judges should never be bloodthirsty". "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," Justice Bhattacharyya observed. He said that there has been a debate around the world as to the retention of the death sentence as a punishment, however heinous and grave the offence may be. "The anti-death penalty camp argues that if deterrence is taken to be a reason for punishment, a lifetime of imprisonment is as good as a death sentence. Rather, a lifetime behind 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," he noted. Justice Bhattacharyya observed that, pitting the pros and cons against each other, if a person is hanged or otherwise killed by dint of a death penalty, the damage done is irreversible. He said that even if subsequently some new light is shed on the investigation or there is discovery of some new evidence or something to justify the reopening of the investigation, "there would be no chance of bringing back a life which has already been taken; thus, the death penalty is irreversible." Alam's lawyer argued that there was no evidence to show that the murder was pre-planned or cold-blooded or to conclude that the same fell under the category of "rarest of the rare" cases and that the trial judge did not consider the possibility of reformation at all. The additional public prosecutor, appearing for the state, contended that the crime was established beyond doubt and prayed that the capital punishment awarded to the appellant by the trial court be upheld. Holding that the court finds no evidence adduced by the state that the convict is beyond reform, Justice Bhattacharyya said that the young age of Alam, who is in his twenties, is another mitigating factor which precludes awarding the death sentence. Noting that Alam was residing at Delhi for a long time after leaving his maternal uncle's house at Dhupguri, where he had earlier stayed for some years, the high court said 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. It noted that the "betrayal" angle, per se, does not justify the death penalty. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC stays govt notice on creation of STF police stns
1 2 Kolkata: A division bench of Calcutta High Court's Jalpaiguri circuit bench has stayed a Bengal govt gazette notification announcing the creation of two Special Task Force (STF) police stations and tying them up with two existing courts in two parts of the state. The state had set up the designated police stations — one in north Bengal and the other in south — to register FIRs and investigate offences under special acts like Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Arms Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. "The entire scheme of BNSS has been sought to be frustrated, prima facie" by such a notification, said a bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, ordering an interim stay on it till Sept 15 or until further orders. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata "Access to justice is not a fancy right. If the notification is to be given force, then a person living in a remote area will never report an offence," Justice Bhattacharyya observed. The bench, however, held that FIRs already registered with the two STF police stations and the investigation thereafter would not be affected by the stay order but their fate shall depend on the outcome of the writ petition. The state, by a notification on Jan 31, created one STF police station at the STF HQ in Salt Lake for all south Bengal districts from Murshidabad to East Midnapore, other than areas under the jurisdiction of Kolkata Police, and the other at Ambikanagar in Siliguri for all north Bengal districts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You To Read in 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo By a subsequent notification on May 16, the govt tied up these police stations with the ACJM court, Bidhannagar and ACJM court, Siliguri. The additional advocate general pleaded that the executive action was well within the powers of state govt. However, the bench underscored the distinction between "local jurisdiction" of courts and determination of "local area" of police stations under BNSS. Having referred to the distinction, the bench held that the state had "picked and chosen" the local limits of police stations "at its whims". Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC: Talcum powder ad calling other products ‘ordinary' not an insult
Kolkata: Using the word 'sadharan' (ordinary) for other products in a talcum powder advertisement is not an insult to the rival company's product, Calcutta High Court observed on Wednesday while dismissing Emami's "disparagement" claim against Dabur. A division bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar said: "It is permissible to portray that the advertiser's product is the best in the world. However, what is shunned is the direct or indirect denigration of the product of another manufacturer. Use of the word 'sadharan' in the context of the present advertisement does not speak ill about the product or say that it is inferior as such. It merely projects the respondent's product as extraordinary as compared to others' products, which are said to be 'sadharan' or ordinary. " The court noted that the freedom of commercial speech of Dabur (respondent) and its fundamental right to do business cannot be "throttled" on a vague perception of disparagement, "which is completely illusory" in the present case. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata Emami Limited filed a case against Dabur India Limited for its 'Cool King' advertisement. They claimed that the protagonist in the advertisement is shown carrying a bottle labelled as ordinary, which looked similar to that of their prickly heat powders "Dermi Cool" and "Navratna". In July 2024, Emami filed a case and got a temporary stop order on July 11, 2024, by which Dabur was restrained from showing the disputed bottle. The court also noted that in the advertisement, there was "no mouthing of the name of the appellant's product and the bottle shown is completely different in shape, size and colour from that of the appellant's product". "Even taking into consideration the overreaching sweep of the appellant's products in the market, unless one is an avid follower of advertisements, having nothing better to do, it is improbable that a common target consumer of normal prudence would have such double recall upon viewing the 'offending' advertisement, connecting the present bottle with that of a bottle which was being shown six months back, and to relate the previous bottle with the product of the appellant," the HC held.
Time of India
20-06-2025
- Time of India
Man hides past divorces, loses current plea in HC
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court has set aside the divorce decree granted to a man 5 years ago on the basis of cruelty and desertion, as he hid his prior two divorces from the wife. The couple married in in Jan 2010 but it did not last more than six months. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A child was born to them in Sept 2010. The couple have been living separately for nearly 15 years now. In 2019, the trial court granted the divorce, upholding the allegations of cruelty and desertion posed by the husband against the wife. While the husband claimed to have disclosed that he was a divorcee, the wife claimed that he did not disclose his two divorces prior to marrying her. The husband claimed that the wife left him after six months of marriage and kept complaining to everyone, including his employer, which led to him being fired. A part of his claim rested on the wife's purported neglect of household duties, her prioritisation of her legal profession as a practising advocate, and repeated threats to file false cases, which, according to him, resulted in a case under Section 498A of IPC. The wife's version was that she was driven out of the house while she was pregnant, and when she tried re-entering after giving birth, she was not allowed. She claimed that the husband questioned her "moral character". To support her claims, the wife submitted documents of the husband's two prior marriages and her approaching the protection officer in Howrah, showing her efforts to seek reconciliation and resume cohabitation. She approached the High Court, stating that the trial court "egregiously erred by equating her legitimate pursuit of legal redress" with cruelty, without any proof of it being false or with malicious intent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On June 11, The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held: "We conclude that a divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (eg, deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of 'clean hands'. " On the fact that the wife resorted to legal means for genuine grievance, the bench held that it cannot be automatically branded as "having committed cruelty" unless there is malicious intent shown.
