“Not a ‘Rarest of Rare’ Case Warranting Death Penalty”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Commutes Death Sentence of father convicted for Rape and Murder of Minor Daughter
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi upheld the conviction of an individual for the rape and murder of his minor daughter but commuted the sentence of death imposed under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. The Bench observed that the chain of circumstantial evidence, including last seen, recovery, and medical findings, established the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. It was recorded that “the accused has furnished absolutely no explanation for what happened to the deceased, who is none other than his daughter, after she went with him.” The court confirmed the conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act while directing that the convict shall undergo life imprisonment.
The judgment disposed of two connected matters arising out of the same FIR. MRC-6-2024 had been referred by the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, while CRA-D-1730-2024 was filed as an appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 22/29.08.2024. The incident in question was reported through a complaint registered on 05.01.2020. It was alleged that the minor daughter of the complainant had been taken from her parental house by the accused on 04.01.2020, and the next day, the complainant was informed over a phone call that the child had been killed.
According to the complaint, the deceased child was last seen alive with the accused. Upon reaching the area near the canal bridge at village Dhianpur, the complainant and her mother reportedly discovered the body of the minor hanging from a tree. The police were informed, and the FIR was registered on the basis of this information.
On completion of investigation, the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, following the medical evidence, charges were amended to include Section 376-A IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused denied all allegations and claimed false implication. However, after trial, the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar convicted the accused and sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The prosecution relied upon the testimony of several witnesses, including the complainant, her mother, her brother, the investigating officer, medical professionals, and independent witnesses. PW1, the complainant, deposed that the accused had forcibly taken the deceased child and later informed the family of her death. PW3, a night forest watcher, testified that he had seen the accused near the location where the child’s body was found, describing his state as perplexed and possibly intoxicated. PW9, a co-worker of the accused, testified that he had seen the accused carrying the child in his shawl near the bus stand on the morning of 05.01.2020.
Medical evidence presented through PW5, a senior resident doctor, included findings of ante-mortem injuries on the neck, bruising on the thigh, and evidence of forceful sexual assault. Vaginal swabs tested positive for spermatozoa, and the cause of death was confirmed as asphyxia due to constriction of the neck.
The defence contended that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. It was argued that the alleged phone call informing the complainant of the murder could not be traced to the accused. Further, there were discrepancies in witness accounts regarding the phone number used and the timing of the discovery of the body in relation to the FIR registration. The defence challenged the credibility of the 'last seen' evidence and submitted that no DNA testing had been conducted to link the accused with the spermatozoa found on the victim. It was also argued that the accused had not been medically examined for his capacity to commit sexual assault and that prosecution witnesses were interested or related.
The prosecution submitted that the chain of circumstances was unbroken and sufficient to establish guilt. The presence of the accused with the deceased shortly before her death, his unexplained conduct, and his failure to furnish any explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were relied upon as strong incriminating circumstances. The recovery of the victim's clothes and identification of the location and body by independent witnesses were submitted as further corroboration.
The Bench observed that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and examined it against the five-fold test laid down in Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. It was recorded: “there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”
The court observed that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. It was recorded: “once it has been established beyond doubt that the accused was seen in the company of the deceased having taken her from her mother the previous evening, the burden lay on him to explain as to how she came to be raped and murdered.” The court held that this burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act had not been discharged.
Regarding the phone call allegedly made by the accused, the court found that the absence of records confirming the number did not materially affect the prosecution’s case. It was observed that the core of the case was the direct testimony of witnesses who saw the accused with the deceased and later at the scene where her body was recovered.
The testimony of PW3, who saw the accused in a perplexed and intoxicated state near the body, was accepted. The court recorded that “merely because PW3-Kulwant Singh did not report the matter to the police earlier in the morning will not create a doubt in the prosecution case, moreso, when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.01.2020 itself.”
The evidence of PW9, who testified seeing the accused with the child shortly before the discovery of the body, was considered credible. The court recorded that his “memo of identification Ex.PW9/A was recorded on 05.01.2020 as well.”
The Bench also discussed the legal principles applicable to the ‘last seen’ theory. Referring to Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that when the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of death is short, it creates a strong presumption requiring explanation. The court recorded: “in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.”
With respect to the defence argument regarding the lack of DNA matching, the court recorded that while DNA testing is desirable, its absence is not fatal where other evidence is cogent. Citing Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it held: “even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, is enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution.”
The Bench concluded that the cumulative effect of all evidence — including eyewitness accounts, recovery, postmortem findings, and failure to explain the child’s death — formed a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The court confirmed the findings of guilt under Section 302 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. However, after examining the nature of the evidence and considering mitigating circumstances, the Division Bench held that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty.
Accordingly, the court recorded: “the sentence of death awarded to the appellant under Section 302 IPC is commuted to that of imprisonment for life.”
The sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act — imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life — was maintained. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The sentence of fine, ₹1,00,000 under Section 302 IPC and ₹50,000 under the POCSO Act, was also upheld.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: State of Punjab v. XXXX and Connected Appeal
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:044770-DB
Case Number: MRC-6-2024 and CRA-D-1730-2024
Bench: Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
[Read/Download order]
