Allahabad High Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Term Without Remission for 25 Years in Minor Cousin’s Rape-Murder Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment, concluding that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" criteria required for capital punishment. While upholding the conviction under Sections 376AB and 302 IPC, the court modified the sentence to life imprisonment for not less than 25 years without remission under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section 376AB IPC.
The court dismissed the Reference for confirmation of the death sentence and partly allowed the appeal regarding the sentence.
The appeal arose from a 2020 judgment by a Special POCSO Court in Firozabad, where the appellant had been convicted under Sections 376AB, 302 IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act in connection with a 2019 crime. The trial court imposed a death sentence, which triggered a Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation and a corresponding Jail Appeal.
As per the prosecution, an FIR was filed by the minor victim's mother, stating her daughter had gone to a neighbor's house around 9:00 PM. Local witnesses claimed to have seen the child with the accused. The child's body was later discovered in a wheat field the next morning.
The postmortem indicated asphyxia due to smothering, with evidence of injuries and blood. Forensic and medical examinations confirmed the presence of human blood, though spermatozoa were not found. During the investigation, the accused was arrested and allegedly confessed.
At trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including the informant, witnesses to the victim's last known whereabouts, medical personnel, and investigating officers. Key physical evidence included the child’s clothing and items recovered from the scene.
The accused denied the allegations, stating during the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that he had distributed money to several children that night and had no involvement with the victim. The defense challenged the credibility of the evidence, citing the lack of injuries, absence of DNA analysis, and flaws in the investigation.
The court recorded that "in the present case the name of the witnesses of last seen is shown in the FIR itself. The delay in lodging of FIR is self-explained as the informant has stated in her written report Ext. Ka-1 that she was in search of her missing daughter through out the whole night."
"The theory of last seen in the present case has been proved by evidence of as many as four witnesses, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and also by PW-5”
Regarding the accused's explanation, the court observed, "The accused has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the witnesses of facts have deposed falsely against him, but could not specify as to what prompted them to testify against him."
On the issue of sexual assault, the court stated, "In inquest report of the victim as well as in her postmortem report it is stated that blood was oozing out from vagina of the deceased, her clothes were smeared with blood. In FSL examination of her clothes, human blood was found."
The court further recorded, "Even partial penetration is sufficient to constitute offence of rape. Therefore, for want of injuries on private part of the victim it cannot be held that she was not subjected to rape."
In relation to the flawed investigation, the Bench noted, "The DNA was taken from nail of the deceased and also the blood stains from her wearing apparel. However due to lapses of Investigating Officer, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable cannot be brushed-aside."
On the POCSO presumptions, the Bench held, "...on facts of the case, the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act, can be drawn against the accused."
Regarding the capital sentence, the court discussed relevant Supreme Court precedents including Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police (2023), Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik, and Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar. The Bench recorded, "we find aggravating circumstance such as the tender age of the victim, her helpless situation, the relationship of the victim with the accused... The mitigating circumstances are that, the accused was a young man of tender age, the offence is mainly based on circumstantial evidence of last seen together."
"It cannot be said that appellant is incorrigible or he is a menace to society and he cannot be reformed or rehabilitated."
"The golden thread in the wave of criminal jurisprudence, still rules good that death sentence can only be awarded in rarest of rare cases."
The court ordered life imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years without remission under Section 302 IPC. The death sentence under Section 376AB IPC was commuted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. A fine of ₹10,000 was imposed for each charge, with three months’ additional imprisonment in case of default. All sentences are to run concurrently, and the total fine amount is to be paid to the informant as compensation.
The conviction was upheld, the sentence modified, and the Reference for the death sentence was dismissed. The accused is to serve the remaining sentence as per law. Trial court records are to be returned promptly, and the jail authorities notified.
The court also acknowledged the legal assistance provided by the court-appointed counsel and awarded them honorariums.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Beena Mishra,From Jail,Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent:- A.G.A
Case Title: ABC vs State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:125249-DB
Case Number: Capital Case No. 1 of 2021 with Reference No. 01 of 2021
Bench: Justice Rajiv Gupta, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
