Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape And Murder Of 5-Year-Old Girl To Life Imprisonment
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl to life imprisonment, finding that the possibility of his reform and rehabilitation could not be ruled out. The trial court had convicted him for murder under the Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO law, sentencing him to death for the murder charge and imposing a life term for the sexual offence. While affirming the conviction, the Bench modified the sentence by substituting life imprisonment for the death penalty and directed steps for compensation to the child’s parents under the victim compensation scheme.
The proceedings arose from a death reference made by the trial court and a connected criminal appeal filed by the accused, both emanating from a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Lohardaga. The prosecution case originated from an incident dated 24 December 2022, in which a minor girl aged about five years was found dead near a bathroom in village Areya, Bagru, Lohardaga.
It was alleged that the accused enticed the child while she was playing with other children by offering money, took her to a secluded place near the bathroom, sexually assaulted her, and caused her death by manual strangulation. An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and charges were framed. During trial, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, including child witnesses, villagers, medical experts, and investigating officers. The defence did not examine any witness. The trial court convicted the accused for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to death for murder and life imprisonment for the POCSO offence. The accused challenged the conviction and sentence, while the trial court made a statutory reference seeking confirmation of the death penalty.
The Division Bench recorded that “admittedly in this case… no ocular witness was traced out in course of investigation to vindicate the alleged occurrence… in such situation the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence.” Referring to settled law, the Court observed that “there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”
While assessing the “last seen” circumstance, the Court noted that “the evidences adduced by PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 support the case of prosecution in palpable way in respect of ‘last seen circumstances’.” On the testimony of child witnesses, the Bench stated that “a child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he or she has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto,” and held that their evidence remained unshaken and corroborated.
On medical evidence, the Court recorded that “death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation,” and that “the deceased had been sexually assaulted by hard and blunt object(s), with evidence of forceful vaginal and anal penetration.”
Addressing the absence of DNA profiling, the Court observed that “non-generation of DNA profiling can’t be a ground to negate the involvement of the accused in the alleged occurrence,” particularly when supported by other cogent evidence.
On sentencing, the Court reiterated that “a sentence of death should be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases, only if an alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed,” and further recorded that “the probability of reformation, rehabilitation and social re-integration of the appellant cannot be ruled out.”
The Court directed that “the impugned order of sentence, awarding the capital punishment of death to the appellant, Indar Oraon, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby, commuted to the life sentence.”
“The sentence passed against the appellant Indar Oraon for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act shall also run concurrently,” and the Court expressly recorded that “we also hereby, affirm the sentence of the appellant Indar Oraon for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.”
“The impugned Judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2025 and Order of sentence dated 10.01.2025 passed by learned Additional and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Lohardaga… stand affirmed, with the modification in the sentence of the appellant Indar Oraon, as aforesaid.”
Also Read: Village Settlement Efforts Can Justify Delay In Rape FIR; Jharkhand High Court Upholds Conviction
With respect to victim compensation, the Court directed that “the parents of the deceased are the victims of crime in this case and they are required to be duly compensated under the ‘Victim Compensation Scheme’ under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 396 of the BNSS, 2023.” It further ordered that “the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, [shall] take up the matter with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, so that these victims of crime may be duly compensated at an early date.”
“The aforesaid Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed with the modification of the sentence of the appellant Indar Oraon for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,” and that “the Death Reference is also answered, accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor; Ms. Sharda Kumari, Assistant Counsel to Public Prosecutor
For the Accused: Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Indar Oraon
Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:140-DB
Case Number: Death Reference No. 01 of 2025 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 847 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Arun Kumar Rai
