The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of Anand Singh for the rape and murder of a girl just 17 days short of her seventh birthday, but commuted his death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life with a mandatory 50 years of actual imprisonment without remission. The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri found that the police fabricated the accused's disclosure statement, and noted serious lapses by the Public Prosecutor and trial Judges during the conduct of the trial.
Court Highlights State's Obligation and Vulnerabilities
Stressing the State's obligation towards every citizen, the Bench observed: "Once the State takes control over all erstwhile value systems, it becomes imperative for the State to ensure that its people, irrespective of age, caste, class, color, or religion, treat each other as equals, deserve complete respect, have the right to live an uninterrupted life with complete dignity, and are rational, ethical, compassionate, kind, and empathetic." The court also underlined the constitutional role of trial courts, stating: "Every trial is a ship, which must mark to the shores, and when she is in troubled waters, the Trial Judge must be the last man off."
Conviction Upheld Despite Investigation and Prosecution Shortcomings
The court concluded that despite serious shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution, the evidence of the accused and the victim being last seen together, coupled with scientifically reliable DNA evidence, formed a complete chain establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for rape, murder, kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidence. During the hearing, the Bench was told that the accused, then aged 27 years, allegedly took advantage of the victim's parents leaving for work on May 24, 2021, in Palwal and lured away the child. Referring to the victim throughout the judgment as "Laadli", the Bench noted the allegations that she was taken to an isolated spot in agricultural fields, raped through both orifices, throttled to death, and her body concealed in a pit.
Court's Moving Observations on the Victim
Observing that Laadli was not even seven years old, the Bench remarked: "Even the black thread with a locket around Laadli’s neck and an additional black thread worn at her waist, as supernatural protections which Laadli’s parents believed would protect their girl child from evil forces, could not save her, because the perpetrator was worse than a devil, whose lust could not be controlled by the so-called magical remedies."
Public Prosecutor and Trial Judges Criticised
The High Court found that the victim's clothes recovered from the pit constituted crucial evidence, but neither the Public Prosecutor nor the trial Judges got the parents to identify them during their testimony. It observed that the victim's mother was never shown the blue lower or the floral kurta allegedly recovered with the body, while even during the father's deposition, the prosecution failed to establish through identification that the clothes belonged to the child. The Bench held that the omission was not attributable to the investigating agency, but squarely to the prosecution and the trial courts. "This lapse mentioned above is not that of the Investigator and his Supervisory Officers but is of the Public Prosecutor and the trial Judges. In the present case, the trial Judge was probably replaced due to a transfer, and this occurred during his tenure, but the second trial Judge also failed to correct it or probably did not even notice it," the Bench observed.
Invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Bench asserted that trial Judges were duty-bound to intervene whenever necessary. "The foundational duty of a Judge is to do justice to the parties, ensuring that no innocent person is convicted but no guilty person escapes unpunished," it observed. Nevertheless, the Bench concluded that the omission did not prejudice the accused because other evidence conclusively established that the recovered clothes belonged to the victim and that one of them had been used to tie her to a tree.
Court Notices Fabrication During Investigation
The Bench also expressed concern over aspects of the investigation. Referring to the victim's father's testimony that he had signed a blank paper at the police station and could not remember all the documents on which his signatures had been obtained after recovery of the body, the court observed that although the circumstance did not affect the prosecution case because he was not an eyewitness, "it shows the tactics the investigation agency adopted while investigating the case of rape and murder."
One of the prosecution's principal claims—that the accused's disclosure statement led to recovery of the victim's body—was rejected by the High Court. The Bench noted that documentary evidence showed the body had already been recovered before 1 pm, as the forensic team had reached the crime scene by then, whereas the investigators had not specified when the accused was actually apprehended. Consequently, it held that it would be unsafe to rely upon the disclosure statement. The court also noticed another improbability: the disclosure statement was a typed document in Devanagari script bearing only the accused's thumb impression, while the prosecution offered no explanation regarding the availability of a laptop, printer or UPS at the place of investigation. "An analysis of the above makes it crystal clear that the disclosure statement was concocted and fabricated by the police."
Last-Seen and DNA Evidence Accepted
The Bench accepted the testimony of a prosecution witness, who stated that the accused purchased two packets of biscuits before leaving with the child on May 24, 2021. The victim was never seen alive thereafter, and her body was later recovered. Holding that the narrow time gap between her disappearance and the commencement of the search ruled out any reasonable possibility of intervention by another person, the court also rejected the defence challenge to the scientific evidence. It found that semen recovered from the victim's clothes matched the accused's blood sample, the chain of custody remained intact and there were no missing links. "The prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the factum of rape and murder by the evidence of last-seen as well as the evidence of DNA." The Bench concluded: "The chain of circumstances is complete, concrete, and leads to the sole inference of Anand Singh’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt."
Sentence Modified: Life Imprisonment Without Remission
Affirming the conviction under Sections 302, 363 and 201 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the High Court modified the sentence. Instead of capital punishment, the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a mandatory 50 years of actual imprisonment without remission under Section 302 IPC, besides payment of a fine of Rs 50 lakh as compensation to the victim upon its realisation. He was also sentenced to 23 years' rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs 23 lakh, likewise payable as compensation upon realisation. The sentences under Sections 363 and 201 IPC were maintained, with modification in the default sentence for non-payment of fine. The Bench directed that all substantive sentences would run concurrently, with the period already undergone to be set off.
