The Calcutta High Court has recently commuted multiple death sentences, emphasizing that justice should not be "bloodthirsty" and that capital punishment should only be reserved for the "rarest of rare cases" where the possibility of reformation is foreclosed. The court has consistently stressed the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation when deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

In one instance, a division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and killing a minor girl, reducing it to life imprisonment without remission for 20 years. The court noted the man's age (58 years) and lack of criminal history as mitigating factors. Furthermore, the court stated that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as no witnesses testified to seeing the convict committing the murder. The court clarified that life imprisonment in this case meant imprisonment for life without remission until 20 years from the date of his arrest.

In another case, the Calcutta High Court commuted the death sentences of two men convicted of the gang rape and murder of a five-year-old girl to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for 60 years. While upholding their conviction, the bench, presided over by Justice Debangsu Basak, considered the socio-economic backgrounds of the convicts, Fagun Mandi and Rabindra Routh, and the possibility of their reformation. The court also acknowledged arguments from the defense that the case did not qualify as one of the rarest of rare, warranting the death penalty. Although the trial court had initially ruled that the brutality of the crime satisfied the "rarest of rare" standard, the High Court took a different view, noting that the state government had spoken positively about the possibility of the convicts' reformation.

Similarly, the High Court commuted the death sentence of a man who murdered his ex-girlfriend by stabbing her 45 times, sentencing him to life imprisonment instead. The court reasoned that the crime, though gruesome, did not fall into the "rarest of rare" category and that the convict was not beyond reformation. The court noted the crime was committed in a fit of rage due to a failed relationship.

These recent decisions by the Calcutta High Court reflect a growing trend in the Indian judiciary of exercising caution when considering capital punishment. The courts are increasingly emphasizing the need to balance aggravating circumstances with mitigating factors, such as the convict's age, socio-economic background, mental health, and potential for rehabilitation. The High Court has made it clear that the death penalty should only be reserved for cases where there is no possibility of reformation and the convict poses a continuing threat to society. The court has also stated that judges should not be "bloodthirsty" and that life imprisonment is the rule, while the death penalty is an exception.