Not Rarest Of Rare Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Rape & Murder Of Minor Daughter

The Punjab & Haryana High Court commuted death sentence awarded to a man into life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without the application of the provisions of premature release, for rape and murder of his 6-year-old daughter.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "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."

Speaking for the bench Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi opined that the 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.

According to prosecution, in January 2020, the convict Pratap Singh confessed to his wife that he killed his daughter and later that day the body was found hanging from the tree. In the medical report it was found that the deceased minor girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and cause of death was "asphyxia as a result of constriction of the neck due to injury."

Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC and awarded death sentence for the same and rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for conviction under Section 6, POCSO Act.

After analysing the evidence on record and submissions, the Court noted that from the testimony of the mother of the deceased and prosecution witnesses "it has been established beyond any doubt" that the deceased was taken away by accused Partap Singh and she was never seen alive thereafter.

The Court said that merely because the accused had been good to his children earlier or did not keep an evil eye on them as stated by the deceased victim's mother (wife of the accused) and other family members  in their cross-examinations "would not create any doubt whatsoever in the case of the prosecution."

"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 on the evening of 04.01.2020," it added.

Relying on Nagesh v. State of Karnataka [2012 AIR (SC) 1965], the Court said that in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

 The bench said that, "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 in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and he has not been able to discharge the said burden not having furnished any explanation either in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or by way of leading any evidence in defence."

It further highlighted that, "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 observed 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."

The Court relied on Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & others, [2016(7) SCC 1] to underscore that, imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with section 45 of the IPC only means imprisonment for rest of life of the convict. The right to claim remission, commutation, reprieve etc. as provided under Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution will always be available being Constitutional Remedies untouchable by the Court .

 In the light of the above, the Court upheld the sentence awarded to Singh for conviction under Section 06 of the POCSO Act. However, "the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is commuted to that of imprisonment for life which would mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without the application of the provisions of premature release/remission."

 Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for the appellant-State.

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Legal Aid Counsel, for the respondent/accused in MR-6-2024 and for the appellant in CRA-D-1730-2024.

 Title: STATE OF PUNJAB v. XXXX

Click here to read/download the order