Section 302 IPC, 376AB IPC, Section 6 POCSO, Sentencing Commutation
Subject : Criminal Law - POCSO and Sexual Assault
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant verdict, commuting the death sentence awarded to an employee of a tent-installer for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a five-year-old girl, referred to as ‘Laado’. The division bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur acquitted the convict’s mother, Kamla Devi, citing insufficient evidence regarding criminal conspiracy, while upholding the guilt of the primary accused, Virender @ Bholu.
In the sweltering heat of May 2018, the small town of Palwal, Haryana, was devastated by the disappearance and subsequent gruesome murder of a five-year-old girl. She had accompanied the accused, who worked for her father, to his home, where she was brutally raped and murdered. Her remains were later discovered stuffed into a flour container in the accused's courtyard after villagers, led by the victim’s family, forcibly gained entry into the house despite initial resistance and an attempt by the accused’s mother to cut the electricity supply.
The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence: the 'last seen' doctrine, CCTV footage showing the accused gripping the victim's hand, and the discovery of the body at his residence. The Defense challenged the recovery of the weapon and the validity of the disclosure statements, highlighting discrepancies in the dates on police documents.
The High Court meticulously dismantled the prosecution’s reliance on controversial disclosure statements, noting, "the prosecution has failed to prove the disclosure statements Ext P6 and P7, beyond a reasonable doubt," partially due to questionable tampering of dates on police records. However, the bench ruled that the remaining chain of circumstantial evidence against Virender was "complete, unbroken, and leads to the sole inference of Virender’s guilt."
In a pointed observation regarding the acquittal of Kamla Devi, the court reflected on the social dynamics of the region. Justice Chitkara noted: > "Unfortunately, in this part of India, family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their 'precious' sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as ‘Raja Betas.’ Kamla Devi... prioritized shielding her son instead of informing the police... although condemnable, her conduct cannot be punished under the Indian Penal Code."
While the crime was heinous, the court applied the 'rarest of rare' doctrine with a humanitarian lens. The judges observed that the murder appeared to be a desperate act of panic to destroy evidence of rape rather than a premeditated, calculated slaughter.
The Court ruled: > "Therefore, when two views are possible before this Court, to impose or not to impose death sentence, then the view for not awarding the capital punishment must be preferred over the other extreme irreversible sentence."
Accordingly, the court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, stipulating a minimum 30-year term of actual incarceration without the benefit of remission. Additionally, the court imposed a compensation of Rs. 30,00,000 for the victim's family, ensuring the perpetrator remained incapacitated during the sunset of his strength, while avoiding the state-sanctioned finality of the gallows.
This judgment serves as a robust reminder that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts to the accused to provide a cogent explanation, but the Court's sentencing power remains guided by the constitutional promise of dignity, even for a criminal. The acquittal of the mother on the grounds of lack of intent to conspire, despite her obstructive behavior post-discovery, underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal conspiracy charges.
View the social posts created for this story.
Capital Punishment - Circumstantial Evidence - Commutation - Rape-Murder - Minor Victim - Reformation
#HCVerdict #DeathPenalty
Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Cite Financial Burden To Delay Judges Retiring At Sixty-Two
06 Aug 2026
Rajasthan High Court Demands Comprehensive Affidavit To Remove Encroachments Affecting Critical Ramgarh Dam Water Flow
06 Aug 2026
How Does Algorithmic Bias In Forest Governance Impact Adivasi Rights In Modern India Today?
06 Aug 2026
Christ University Pune Lavasa Hosts International Conference On Indian Knowledge Systems And Global Governance
06 Aug 2026
Bombay High Court Rules Pre-2015 Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments Valid if Contractually Authorized by Agreement
06 Aug 2026
Madras High Court orders TASMAC to issue bills for every liquor sale amid overcharging row
07 Aug 2026
Ernst & Young Announces Applications for Senior Associate Role in Legal Practice
08 Aug 2026
Kerala High Court Salutes R. Rajesh's Supreme Sacrifice, Urges Vigilance in Kochi Flood Prevention
08 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Backs Balanced Calcutta High Court Order on TMC Frozen Accounts in ED Probe
12 Aug 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.