Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Death Sentences Due to Serious Procedural Irregularities

In a significant judicial development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has set aside the death sentences imposed upon two individuals convicted for the rape and murder of a minor. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri, ordered a retrial, emphasizing that procedural fairness is a non-negotiable requirement of the criminal justice system.

The Tragedy and Legal Background

The case traces back to January 2018, when a 12-year-old girl, referred to as 'Laadli', went missing in Panipat. Her body was discovered the following day, leading to the registration of an FIR at Police Station Matlauda under various provisions, including the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The trial court had initially convicted Pardeep and Sagar alias Kallu, sentencing them to death. The convicts appealed the verdict, while the matter was also presented to the High Court as a murder reference for the confirmation of the death sentences.

Procedural Lapses and The Court's Intervention

The High Court identified critical failures during the trial process. Firstly, the court noted that the investigating officers failed to forward the Forensic Science Laboratory report, which identified human semen on vaginal samples, to the medical board for a final opinion regarding sexual assault. This omission, the court observed, was a failure of the state to properly substantiate its case.

Furthermore, the High Court scrutinized the trial court's compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Bench found that the trial court failed to put specific incriminating circumstances—such as the recovery of key evidence identified by witnesses—to the accused.

Arguments and Judicial Reasoning

The High Court highlighted that the trial court’s questioning of the accused was mechanical and generic. By failing to draw the accused's attention to specific evidence, the lower court denied them the fundamental right to explain incriminating material, violating the principle of audi alteram partem . The Bench noted that while these defects were technically "irregularities" rather than "illegalities," they were serious enough to impede a just decision.

Key Observations from the Judgment

The High Court offered several stern observations regarding the conduct of the prosecution and the judiciary:

  • "It was grossly negligent on the part of the Investigating Officer and the Supervisory Officers not to seek the opinion of the Doctor(s) by forwarding the FSL Report to the doctor(s)."
  • "The object of examination under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence... The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity."
  • "The court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused."

The Court’s Decision and Future Implications

Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter back to the trial court. The court directed that the trial be resumed from the stage of summoning the medical witnesses and re-recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The Bench mandated that the trial court must afford the accused a fresh opportunity to lead evidence, ensuring that justice is served for both the victim and the accused. The registry was directed to transmit the record back to the Court of Session, with an urgent request to conclude the trial expeditiously.