Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
Criminal Law

Heinousness Alone Cannot Justify Death: Rajasthan High Court Commutes Child Rape-Murder Death Sentence to 30 Years

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a man's conviction for the rape and murder of a child under the POCSO Act and Section 302 IPC, holding that the last-seen evidence, the recovery of her clothes at his instance and a DNA report formed a complete chain (paras 28-30). It declined to confirm his death sentence: aged 24, poor and without criminal antecedents, he was not a rarest-of-rare case, so the sentence was commuted to 30 years' imprisonment without parole or premature release (paras 34-36).

Heinousness Alone Cannot Justify Death: Rajasthan High Court Commutes Child Rape-Murder Death Sentence to 30 Years

Judgment Intelligence

Other
State of Rajasthan v. N
2024:RJ-JD:9722-DB
D.B. Murder Reference No. 1/2021 with D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 134/2021
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
21 March 2024
Bench
Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni
Relevant Acts & Sections
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 5(j)(iv)(m), 6; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 376-A, 376-AB; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 366; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
Final Outcome

Murder reference answered in the negative; appeal partly allowed; conviction affirmed. For the offences under Section 5(j)(iv)(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 302 IPC, the death sentence is commuted to 30 years' imprisonment without any possibility of parole or premature release; fine and default stipulation maintained (paras 36-37).

View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. The last-seen evidence of the two child witnesses was found reliable (paras 22.1, 23.1).
  2. A non-matching mixed DNA profile on one article did not outweigh the matching profiles; all evidence is weighed (paras 27-28).
  3. Last-seen evidence, recovery of the clothes and the DNA report formed a complete chain; conviction affirmed (paras 28-30).
  4. Not rarest of rare: aged 24, poor and without criminal antecedents; heinousness alone cannot justify death (paras 31.3, 34).
  5. Death sentence commuted to 30 years without parole or premature release; maximum victim compensation for the family (paras 36-36.1).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

A Special Judge (POCSO) convicted the accused, anonymised here as ‘N’, of the rape and murder of a minor girl and sentenced him to death (para 1). The sentence came to the High Court for confirmation under Section 366 Cr.P.C. together with his appeal (paras 1.1-1.2). The prosecution case was that he took the girl away from her brother and cousin while they were bathing at a pond; her body was later found nearby (paras 2-3). The trial court relied on the boys' last-seen evidence, the recovery of her clothes at his instance and a DNA report (para 10). The defence attacked contradictions, the recovery, the chain of custody of samples and a non-matching DNA profile (paras 13-13.18).

Court's Findings

The Bench found nothing to discard the evidence of the two child witnesses, both aged 10 (paras 22-23.1). Applying the five principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda for circumstantial evidence (paras 25-25.1), it read three circumstances together: the last-seen evidence, the recovery of the child's clothes from a place in his house not ordinarily accessible to others, and the DNA report (para 28). The male DNA profile from his underwear and blood matched the swab taken from the child and hair from her top; a non-matching mixed profile on her jeans did not displace this, as Veerendra requires the court to weigh all the evidence (paras 27-27.1). The conviction was upheld (paras 29-30). On sentence, the crime was of an extreme nature (para 31.1), but under the crime and criminal tests set out in Manoj Pratap Singh the case was not rarest of rare (paras 31.2-31.3). The accused was a poor man of 24 without criminal antecedents, and heinousness alone cannot justify capital punishment (para 34). Following Anand Kindo, Kashi Nath Singh and Navas, a fixed term of thirty years was held just (paras 33-35).

Legal Principle

A death sentence needs the crime test fully satisfied and no mitigating circumstance in the accused's favour. Young age, no criminal record, the possibility of reformation and not being a menace to society can avoid capital punishment even for an extremely heinous crime, and the court may impose a long fixed term instead (paras 31.3, 33-35).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 25, 25.1

    Five conditions that must be fully established before a conviction on circumstantial evidence; applied to the last-seen, recovery and DNA circumstances.

  2. Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 12 SCC 56
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 25.2

    Tests that circumstantial evidence must satisfy for a conviction, forming a chain pointing to the guilt of the accused alone.

  3. Veerendra v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 10 SCC 668
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27.1

    A negative DNA result does not by itself defeat the prosecution; the court must weigh the other material and evidence on record.

View all precedents (14)
  1. Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 7899-7900/2015, decided on 24.06.2022
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 31.2, 31.3

    Evolution of death-sentence principles; aggravating circumstances (crime test), mitigating circumstances (criminal test) and the rarest-of-rare test.

  2. State of Haryana v. Anand Kindo & Anr. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1797-1798/2010 with connected matters, decided on 08.09.2022
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33

    Young age, possibility of reformation, not being a menace to society and no previous criminal record can avoid capital punishment; a fixed term of 30 years allows re-integration.

  3. Kashi Nath Singh alias Kallu Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2023) 7 SCC 317
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33.1

    Sentence for rape and murder of a girl modified to a fixed term of 30 years without remission.

  4. Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala Criminal Appeal No. 1215/2011, decided on 18.03.2024
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33.2

    Proportionality governs the number of years of imprisonment without remission; aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to fixing that term.

  5. Pradeep v. State of Haryana 2023 SCC Online SC 777
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

  6. Jabir & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand 2023 AIR 488
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

  7. Rahul v. State of Delhi 2022 (9) SCR 1129
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

  8. Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 of 2023, decided on 19.05.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

  9. State of Rajasthan v. Hariom Sharma D.B. Criminal Death Reference No. 1/2021, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, decided on 09.07.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

  10. Premjibhai Bachubhai Khaslya v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2009 SCC OnLine Guj 12076
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

  11. State of Rajasthan v. Shahabudeen & Ors. D.B. Criminal Death Reference No. 01/2016, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 14.05.2019
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13.21

    Cited by counsel for the accused in support of his submissions; not discussed further in the judgment.

Topics: Circumstantial Evidence Last Seen Theory Death Penalty DNA Testing
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: March 21, 2024 Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Oct 7, 2026
Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen
Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Oct 6, 2026
Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court

Oct 5, 2026
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt