MP HC Commutes Maternal Uncle’s Death Sentence For Raping And Killing 9-Year-Old Niece To Life Without Remission For Remainder Of His Life

The prosecution case was that a nine-year-old girl disappeared during a family wedding and was later found dead, with injuries indicating sexual assault and strangulation.

Her 11-year-old cousin testified that she saw the accused, a maternal uncle by relation, take the sleeping child away.

The prosecution also relied on recoveries and DNA evidence linking the accused and the deceased.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 363, 366, 376A, 376AB and 302 of the IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, and imposed death sentences for specified offences.

An earlier conviction had been set aside and the case remanded because the investigating officer’s evidence had been recorded in the accused’s absence; after that evidence was re-recorded in his presence, the trial court again convicted him and imposed death sentences.

For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, and form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra).

A competent child witness’s evidence is assessed with circumspection, but is not to be rejected merely because the witness is a child or because corroboration is absent; the court must assess whether the account is voluntary and reliable (State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh).

“Last seen” evidence alone is insufficient, but may support guilt when there is close temporal proximity to the death and other connecting circumstances; Section 106 of the Evidence Act may provide an additional link once the prosecution establishes the relevant facts.

Under Section 354(3) CrPC and the “rarest of rare” doctrine, death is an exception and life imprisonment the rule; sentencing must consider both the crime and the offender, including the probability of reformation and rehabilitation.

The prosecution must place material before the court to show that reformation is improbable before death is imposed (Bachan Singh, Bhagwani and Mofil Khan).

The court also referred to the directions in Aman Singh concerning comprehensive reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances and meaningful representation in death-reference cases.

The Court accepted the post-mortem evidence that the child died from ante-mortem neck compression and had injuries consistent with sexual assault.

It found the cousin’s identification credible because she knew the accused, had an opportunity to observe him at close range, and explained her identification despite seeing him from behind; discrepancies about when she informed relatives did not undermine the core account.

The child was last seen with the accused within hours of the discovery of her body, and the Court considered that circumstance alongside recoveries and DNA findings linking the accused to the deceased’s clothing and the deceased to the accused’s clothing.

The Court therefore upheld guilt.

On sentence, however, it found that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold: the State’s report did not show that the accused could not be reformed, and his prison conduct was reported as disciplined and satisfactory.

The brutality and relationship of trust aggravated the offence, but did not foreclose a lesser sentence.

It set aside the death sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 376A and 302 IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, substituting imprisonment for the remainder of the accused’s natural life without remission.

The remaining sentences were affirmed; the death reference and appeal were disposed of accordingly.