The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, upheld the death sentence of Panchram alias Mannu Gendre (35), convicted for the brutal murder of a four-year-old child. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, emphasized that while the death penalty must be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, courts must carefully weigh both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before awarding capital punishment.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a horrific incident on April 5, 2022, when Panchram Gendre allegedly abducted Harsh Kumar Chetan, the four-year-old son of his neighbor Pushpa Chetan, under the pretext of taking him for a ride. When the child failed to return home, a police complaint was lodged at Urla Police Station, Raipur under Crime No. 140/2022. After an extensive investigation, police found the child’s half-burnt body near Nevnara and Akoli Khar in Bemetara district.
The prosecution argued that Gendre, motivated by personal vengeance and frustration over unreciprocated feelings towards the victim’s mother, had deliberately killed the child by setting him on fire. The trial court found him guilty under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 364 (abduction with intent to murder), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to death, pending confirmation by the High Court.
Legal Issues Considered by the High Court
During the appeal hearing (Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2025), defense counsel Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Arvind Panda, Advocate, argued that the case lacked direct eyewitnesses and was based purely on circumstantial evidence. The defense highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and questioned the reliability of CCTV footage and forensic evidence. Sinha contended that even if the accused was found guilty, the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” doctrine necessary to warrant the death penalty.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur, asserted that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, forensic reports, call records, and the accused’s conduct. The State maintained that the manner of the crime—burning a defenseless child alive—displayed extreme brutality and warranted the harshest punishment.
Observations of the Court
In its detailed judgment, the High Court reaffirmed the importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors before awarding a death sentence. The court cited the landmark Supreme Court rulings in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), which established the “rarest of rare” doctrine for capital punishment.
Key observations of the court included:
Nature and brutality of the crime: The court noted that the murder involved the intentional burning of a child, causing excruciating suffering, making it an act of extreme depravity.
Impact on society: The judgment highlighted the terror such crimes create in society and the necessity of the harshest punishment to serve as a deterrent.
Possibility of reform: The court examined the accused’s background and behavior but found no mitigating factors suggesting the possibility of reformation.
Proportionality of punishment: The court ruled that life imprisonment would be inadequate given the gravity of the offense and that only the death penalty would serve the interests of justice.
Quoting from its verdict, the High Court stated:
“The balance between justice and mercy must be carefully maintained. While the courts must not impose the death penalty lightly, cases where an innocent child is subjected to such barbarity leave no scope for leniency.”
Final Verdict
The High Court confirmed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that the case met all the criteria for a death sentence under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The court directed that the execution would be subject to approval by higher judicial authorities and any possible presidential mercy petition.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s stance that while capital punishment must be awarded sparingly, crimes of extreme brutality—particularly against children—deserve the most severe punishment under the law.
