The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl in Uttarakhand, ruling that the brutality of a crime by itself cannot be the sole basis to classify a case as falling under the “rarest of rare” category warranting capital punishment.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta on July 16, 2025, allowing criminal appeals against the High Court of Uttarakhand’s 2020 judgment that had confirmed the trial court’s order of conviction and death penalty.
Background of the Case
In July 2018, the 10-year-old victim was playing near her home with cousins and friends when she went missing. Witnesses, including her father and relatives, stated that the convict had lured the children to his hut by offering them ten-rupee notes. While the other children were allowed to leave, the victim was kept back. Hours later, after frantic searching, the child was found dead, hidden under empty cement bags inside the hut.
The post-mortem report confirmed death due to manual strangulation after sexual assault. A first information report was lodged, and the police investigation led to the recovery of forensic evidence, including DNA samples.
Trial and Conviction
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Key evidence included:
- Last seen theory: Child witnesses testified they had seen the victim last with the accused.
- Recovery of the body: Multiple witnesses confirmed the body was recovered from the accused’s hut.
- DNA evidence: Forensic reports established that the DNA samples from the crime scene matched those of the accused.
The trial court concluded that the cruelty of the crime, particularly the murder of a defenseless child following rape, qualified the case as “rarest of rare” and imposed the death penalty.
High Court’s Confirmation
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, noting that the presence of the victim in the convict’s hut, corroborated by witness statements and forensic evidence, left no room for doubt regarding his guilt.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court disagreed with the imposition of the death penalty.
The bench noted that although the crime was undoubtedly brutal, “the brutality of a crime cannot be the only criterion for determining whether a case falls under the ‘rarest of the rare’ category.”
The Court referred to past judgments, including Gudda v. State of M.P. and Manoj v. State of M.P., emphasizing the need to evaluate both aggravating and mitigating circumstances and to examine whether the possibility of reformation is foreclosed.
Reports submitted to the Court highlighted the convict’s difficult socio-economic background, lack of prior criminal record, and good conduct in prison. A psychological evaluation also found no psychiatric disturbances.
Final Decision
Considering the mitigating factors and the broader principles laid down in capital punishment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court concluded that life imprisonment without remission, extending to the natural life of the convict, was the appropriate sentence.
The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the High Court’s order to that extent, while the conviction remained undisturbed.
