The Madhya Pradesh High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a 24-year-old man convicted for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, instead imposing life imprisonment until the end of his natural life, with a direction that no remission be granted until he has served at least 25 years.

A division bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra upheld the conviction while modifying the sentence, holding that the case did not fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ category warranting capital punishment.

While affirming the trial court's conviction under Sections 302, 363, 366A, 376(3) read with 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances pointing solely to the guilt of the accused.

The bench relied on the testimonies of the victim’s grandmother (PW-2), who had last seen the victim with the appellant, the dog handler (PW-12), who confirmed that the sniffer dog traced the scent directly to the appellant’s house, and the investigating officer. Additionally, the DNA report corroborated the prosecution’s case.

"The chain of all the circumstances is complete to point out towards the guilt of the appellant and nobody else," the Court noted, while reiterating that the conviction was required to be upheld.

Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari, appearing for the appellant, questioned the admissibility of the DNA report, contending that the scientist who prepared it had not been examined. He also argued that the case largely rested on the testimonies of three witnesses and that the appellant came from a socially and economically disadvantaged background, making a case for reform.

Citing Karandeep Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, the defence sought to challenge the evidentiary value of the DNA report. However, the High Court rejected this argument, noting that the report was prepared by government experts and there was no allegation of tampering or improper handling of the sample.

"The DNA report, supported by corroborative evidence and the absence of any proven procedural flaws, forms a reliable part of the evidentiary chain," the bench observed.

While weighing the sentencing, the Court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors. The appellant was already facing trial in a separate murder case involving the killing of a senior citizen, raising concerns about his propensity for violent conduct. However, the Court noted that:

• The appellant had no proven criminal antecedents prior to these two cases;

• He was only 24 years old at the time of the offence;

• His conduct in jail had not raised any red flags.

Referring to Ramesh K. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, the bench reiterated that the death penalty must be reserved for cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed."

“There are no reports of proven misbehaviour or erratic behaviour of the appellant in the prison. It is also true that appellant was aged about 24 years. Prior to that, he had no criminal antecedents,” the bench noted.

The Court concluded that the possibility of reformation had not been entirely extinguished and, therefore, a sentence of life imprisonment without remission for at least 25 years would meet the ends of justice.

Representation

• For the Convict: Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari, Advocates Kaustubh Chaturvedi and Pramod Singh Tomar

• For the State: Public Prosecutor Nitin Kumar Gupta

Case Title: In Reference v. VA (2025:MPHC-JBP:27672)
Judgment Date: June 25, 2025