In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for the horrific rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old girl in Palwal, Haryana. The court ordered that he must spend the rest of his natural life in prison without any possibility of remission, a sentence aimed at protecting society from his "pervertedness." In a parallel decision, the court acquitted the convict's mother, who had been sentenced to seven years by a trial court, observing her actions were driven by a misguided desire to protect her "Raja beta" (king son).
The Gruesome Crime and Judicial Reasoning
The tragic incident dates back to May 31, 2018. The victim, precisely five years, seven months, and fourteen days old, was the daughter of the convict's employer, who ran a tent installation business. On that fateful day, the convict had gone to fetch lunch for the girl's father. Upon his return, the young girl accompanied him. Seizing an opportunity when the father was napping, the convict took the child to his residence.
There, he raped the minor and then, in a brutal act, stabbed her multiple times with a kitchen knife. To conceal his heinous crime, he hid her body in a container used for storing flour. Forensic evidence was chilling. The postmortem report recorded tears to her clitoris and hymen, alongside multiple stab wounds, one of which pierced her liver. The medical examiner confirmed the possibility of rape and sexual assault.
A bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara, in its verdict dated December 23, 2025, upheld the conviction but altered the sentence. The court noted that while the rape and murder were undisputed—supported by the birth certificate and postmortem—the murder itself was "because of panic to destroy the evidence of rape and not a premeditated act." This distinction played a crucial role in its decision against the death penalty.
From Death Row to Life Without Remission
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of Supreme Court precedents in similar cases of child rape and murder where capital punishment was commuted. Emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty an exception, the bench stressed the courts' duty to consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation.
The court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 30 years without any remission, effectively meaning incarceration until his natural death. The bench justified this by stating it would "safeguard the other girls on the street from the pervertedness of the convict" and incapacitate him. It noted the convict had no prior criminal record and his conduct in prison was not violative, leaving a window for reformation, however slim.
The chain of circumstantial evidence was found to be complete: villagers saw him leading the girl towards his house, he gave a false explanation to her father, and the body was recovered from his house. DNA from the victim matched bloodstains found on the drum and a nearby stone.
Acquittal of the Mother: "Blind Love" for a "Raja Beta"
In a striking part of the judgment, the High Court acquitted the convict's mother, who had been sentenced to seven years by the trial court. The court acknowledged that she had resisted searches and even switched off the electricity when villagers tried to enter her home after the crime.
However, the bench found no admissible evidence of her active participation in the crime or an intent to conceal evidence. The court's remarks delved into societal norms, observing that "in this part of India, family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their precious sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as Raja Betas."
This mindset, the judges noted, is a reflection of deep-seated patriarchy. The mother prioritized shielding her son over informing the police or seeking justice for the slain girl. Yet, the court concluded, "Her only fault is that she was trying to protect her Raja-beta, for which she cannot be punished under the Indian Penal Code." Her love, the verdict stated, simply overrode her sense of justice.
The final ruling thus balances a stern, lifelong punishment for the perpetrator with a controversial but legally reasoned acquittal for his mother, casting a harsh light on complex familial loyalties and judicial principles in the face of an unspeakable crime.
