The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentences of two men convicted of the rape and murder of a five-year-old child, citing the possibility of reform. The court has instead sentenced them to life imprisonment without remission for 60 years, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime.

In 2021, Fagun Mandi and Rabindra Routh kidnapped the child, subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and strangled her to death before hiding her body. The Jhargram court convicted the accused in 2023.

A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi affirmed the Jhargram court's conviction, stating that the prosecution had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court acknowledged the depravity of the crime, noting that the convicts' actions "demonstrate a quality of depravity that shocks the conscience". The bench emphasized the need to strike a balance between the gravity of the offense and the quantum of punishment.

However, the court also cited Supreme Court judgments that emphasize considering the socio-economic backwardness, conduct of the convict post-custody, and any criminal antecedents when determining the sentence.

Reports presented to the court indicated that Mandi was a slow learner with speech problems, who worked with his brother on a fishing trawler. His rectification process at the correctional home was reported to be progressing well. Routh was also described as a slow learner who dropped out of school after the first grade and was undergoing psychiatric treatment for depression. The state report indicated that Routh's behavior at the correctional home was good, and neither of the men had prior criminal records.

Considering the appellants' background, mental health status, and the nature of the crime, the High Court deemed it appropriate to impose a life sentence without the possibility of remission for 60 years. The court stated that it could not definitively say that releasing either of the appellants on remission would not pose a menace to society.

The senior advocate representing the appellants argued that the crime, while heinous, did not meet the criteria for the "rarest of rare cases" that warrant the death penalty. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the importance of considering the possibility of rehabilitation, even in cases involving heinous crimes against children.

This decision reflects the judiciary's cautious approach to applying the death penalty, underscoring the importance of balancing justice with the possibility of human reform. The court acknowledged the brutality of the crime but prioritized the convicts' potential for rehabilitation and their socio-economic backgrounds in its final judgment.