Not “Rarest Of Rare” Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Accused Of Raping & Killing His Minor Daughter

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man to that of imprisonment for life, who was accused of raping and murdering his minor daughter.

The Court was deciding an Appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of death sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, “While there is no doubt about the brutal and heinous nature of the crime committed by the accused who is none other than the father of the deceased, the fact remains that he has no criminal antecedents, hails from a poor socio-economic background and his conduct inside the Jail has been satisfactory. Further, at the time of the crime, he was of the age of 35 years. Therefore, the instant case cannot be said to be falling in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ in which there is no alternative but to impose the death sentence.”

Asstt. A.G. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal appeared for the Appellant while Legal Aid Counsel Pradeep Prakash Chahar appeared for the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, an FIR was registered in 2020 based on the information provided by the Complainant who stated that her marriage was solemnized with the accused 13 years back. She had three children and was living at her paternal house for the last one year as her husband used to allegedly beat her under the influence of liquor. It was alleged that her husband sometimes used to take her daughter from village and would drop her back. But she always remained apprehensive that he would harm her minor daughter. One day, her husband came to her house and allegedly took her daughter forcibly. The next day, he rang up phone of her brother and allegedly stated that he had killed his daughter.

The Complainant along with her mother went to her husband’s house where she came to know that he used to work at Rayya and when they reached near the canal bridge of the said village, they came to know about one dead body having been found hanging on the tree. It was found that the said dead body was of her daughter. She firmly believed that her daughter was killed by her husband. Resultantly, after investigation, the accused was arrested. On the receipt of the medical report, amended charge under Sections 302 and 376-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and in the alternative, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was framed against the accused. The Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused and awarded death sentence to him along with a fine. Hence, this was challenged before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… it is a settled proposition of law that merely because the potency test of an accused has not been conducted and his DNA profiling has not been done cannot be a basis for the acquittal of the accused once there is sufficient other material for the Court to reach a conclusion of the guilt of the accused.”

The Court said that though there are some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses as to when the police party had reached the spot, the same are not fatal to the prosecution case which otherwise stands established from the evidence on record.

“Further, merely because the prosecution was not able to produce evidence regarding the ownership of Mobile No. ………….. or any evidence to show from which phone the accused had made a call to Mobile No. ………… would not create any doubt in the prosecution version in view of the clear and consistence evidence of the PWs having ‘last seen’ the accused with the deceased”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the prosecution has been able to clearly, cogently, and categorically establish that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete so as to leave no doubt whatsoever that the deceased aged 06 years, who was none other than the daughter of the accused had been taken away by him.

“She was found raped and murdered the next morning and the accused has not been able to furnish any explanation whatsoever as to what had transpired with his deceased daughter after he had taken her away with him”, it further noted.

However, the Court awarded punishment of imprisonment for life to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC which would mean for an actual imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without application of the provisions of premature release/remission.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, and commuted the death sentence.

Cause Title- State of Punjab v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:044770-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment