Old age, ill health cannot reduce punishment for inhuman act: HC
Times of India | 26 November 2025
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday refused to shorten the life imprisonment sentence of two octogenarians despite health complications. The duo was convicted for killing a man and hurting his family in 1998.
While turning down the appeal to reduce the sentence on the grounds of age and health of the two — an 80-year-old suffering from Alzheimer's, and an 83-year-old partially blind person — the division bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the act was "barbaric and inhuman", as well as "calculated and premeditated".
The conviction in the murder by Umakanta Mondal, Sudarshan Mondal, and Sudhir Mondal was passed in 2015. Seven others were sentenced to 1-year jail for rioting. Since the appeal, two of the convicts passed away.
The case dates back to Jan 29, 1998, when Umakanta brought 14 armed men to victim Akalu Mondal's village during a meeting on dispute resolution. This meeting was to be held to settle a five-month-old case where one of the accused, Gudar Mondal, snatched Rs 800 and a cycle from the brother of the deceased, Bijoy Mondal. Akalu lodged a complaint with the local police station about this.
The judge observed that the sentence could have been reduced considering the age and health if the convicts had merely threatened the victim. However, the convicts chased the victim, his father, and two brothers. When they tried to hide in a villager's home, the convicts broke in, killed Akalu, and severely injured the others.
"Indeed, age and health of a convict are relevant considerations while deciding punishment. The nature of and the manner in which the crime was committed, and the criminal would, however, be of paramount consideration," the division bench held, while stating the convicts were found guilty of a heinous crime.
"They killed the victim and seriously injured two others. The assault was aimed at silencing the victims so they would not be able to claim the cycle and the money stolen from them. A lenient view on punishment could have been taken if the appellants only intimidated the victims," the bench held, upholding the trial court's conviction and sentence.
It was directed that if anyone was on bail, they would have to surrender and serve the sentence imposed by the trial court in Malda.