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.
Source link
