The incident occurred on 24 May 2021 when the victim, a seven‑year‑old girl belonging to a scheduled tribe family from Madhya Pradesh, was reported missing by her father. The family was residing at a tile plant in Palwal where the father worked as a labourer. According to the prosecution, the accused, a neighbour, took advantage of the parents’ absence for work and lured the child away. The trial court, after examining the evidence, recorded that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor, subsequently throttled her to death and concealed the body in a pit. The post‑mortem report and DNA analysis corroborated the sexual assault charge. On the basis of these findings, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and the relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and sentenced him to death.

High Court’s examination of the prosecution case

In its judgment delivered on 8 July, a Division Bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench affirmed that the offence of penetrative sexual assault was established by the post‑mortem report and the DNA evidence, thereby upholding the conviction on both counts. The Court noted that the material placed on record left no reasonable doubt about the involvement of the accused in the crime.

Consideration of sentencing alternatives

Although the conviction was affirmed, the Bench turned to the question of sentence. It observed that the imposition of capital punishment must be reserved for the rarest of rare cases and that any deviation from this principle must be justified by mitigating circumstances. The Court referred to various judicial precedents that guide the exercise of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing that the punishment must be proportionate and not violate the accused’s right to a sentence comparable to that awarded to other similarly situated offenders.

The Bench stated that, taking into account all mitigating factors, the maximum incarceration permissible other than death should be imposed to avoid a disproportionate sentence. Consequently, it concluded that the death sentences on both murder and rape charges should be commuted to life imprisonment.

Operative order and conditions attached

The High Court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life with a specific direction that the accused shall not be released unless he has served an actual period of fifty years in custody. In addition, the fine imposed for the murder offence was enhanced to fifty lakh rupees. The Court clarified that, in the event of failure to pay the fine, the accused would undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of five hundred days.

To underline the rationale behind the lengthy incarceration, the Bench remarked that the accused must remain in prison till the sunset of his virility to ensure that he does not pose a potential risk to other girls. This observation was attributed directly to the Judges Anoop Chitkara and Ramesh Chander Dimri.

Representation of the parties

The State was represented by advocates Yuvraj Shandilya, Rahul Mohan, Karan Sharma and Shiva Khurmi. The accused appeared through Legal Aid Counsel Vibha Dhiman. Advocate Prateek Gupta acted as amicus curiae, assisting the Court with neutral submissions.

Implications of the decision

The decision illustrates the High Court’s approach to balancing the gravity of offences against children with the constitutional requirement of proportionality in punishment. By substituting the death penalty with a term that effectively amounts to lifelong incarceration, the Court has sought to satisfy the societal demand for severe sanction while adhering to established sentencing principles. The order also highlights the Court’s willingness to enhance financial penalties and to attach substantive conditions to life sentences in cases involving sexual violence against minors.