P&H High Court Applies 'Descending Scale' Sentencing Model, Commutes Death Sentence For 6-Yr-Old's Rape-Murder But Bars Release Before 50 Yrs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence imposed on a man convicted for rape and murder of a six-year-old girl, but directed that he shall not be released unless he serves a minimum actual sentence of 50 years. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 228]

In doing so, the Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri applied the "descending scale" model of sentencing, which translates to 'younger the victim, higher the sentence'.

Since in the present case the victim was almost 7 years old, the Court commuted death penalty and sentenced the 24-year-old convict to Rigorous imprisonment for Life.

However, to ensure that "this pervert is not a potential risk to the other girls", the Court clarified that he shall not be released unless he has served a minimum actual sentence of 50 years, i.e. "till the sunset of his virility".

The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by convict Anand Singh against his conviction, along with a reference made by the trial court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. (Section 407 BNSS) for confirmation of the death sentence.

The victim, referred to by the Court as "Laadli," was allegedly lured away by the convict, her neighbour, on May 24, 2021, while her parents were away at work. The prosecution's case was that the convict took the child to an isolated agricultural field, raped her, strangled her to death, and concealed her body in a pit.

The following day, based on what the police claimed was the accused's disclosure statement, the body was recovered from the pit, tied by the neck to a tree trunk with a cloth. The post-mortem confirmed sexual assault and death by asphyxiation due to strangulation.

The Special POCSO Court, convicted the accused under Sections 302, 363, 201 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and awarded the death sentence for the offences of murder and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

While upholding the conviction, the Bench made significant observations about the quality of the investigation and the trial.

Disclosure Statement

The Court found that the timeline of events, as established through witness testimony and the Forensic Science Laboratory's crime-scene report, showed that the child's body had already been discovered by the police — and the FSL team called to the spot — before the accused was taken into custody in the evening of May 25, 2021.

The Court noted that the disclosure statement was a typed document, with no evidence that the police had access to a printer or laptop at the scene, and held that this, combined with the timeline, established that "the disclosure statement was concocted and fabricated by the police."

Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the recovery of the body pursuant to any disclosure by the accused.

Complaint and Signatures

The Court noted discrepancies between the signatures of the victim's father on the written complaint and those made by him during his court testimony, observing that the complaint appeared to have been written by someone else, though this finding did not affect the outcome since the father was not a witness to the incident itself.

On lapses by the prosecution and trial court

The Bench observed that neither the Public Prosecutor nor the trial judge had the recovered clothing formally identified by the victim's parents in court — a lapse the Court attributed to the prosecutor and the judge rather than the investigators, invoking the court's power under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to intervene in such situations.

Evidence That Sustained the Conviction

Despite these infirmities, the Court held that the conviction was safely sustainable on two independent strands of evidence:

Last seen theory: A local shopkeeper's testimony that the accused had visited his shop with the victim at 8:00 AM on the day of the crime, shortly before she went missing, was found to be of "sterling quality" and unshaken in cross-examination, establishing that the accused was last seen with the child.

DNA evidence: The Court undertook a detailed chain-of-custody analysis of the forensic samples and held that the DNA profile obtained from the accused's blood sample matched semen and biological traces found on the child's clothing recovered from the crime scene, establishing his involvement in the sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench held that these two threads, taken together, formed a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, applying the "panchsheel" principles for circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

On Death Sentence

Surveying an extensive body of Supreme Court precedent on sentencing in cases involving the rape and murder of minor girls ,including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, and a series of judgments commuting death sentences in comparable cases involving young victims — the Court held that while the crime was undoubtedly heinous, the case did not meet the threshold required to conclusively rule out the "probability of reform," as mandated for imposing the death penalty.

The Court observed that the murder appeared to have been committed "in the aftermath of panic to destroy the evidence of rape, rather than a premeditated act," and noted a psychological assessment placing the convict's IQ at 95 with no overt psychopathology.

Referring to a body of precedent commuting death sentences to fixed-term imprisonment without remission (ranging from 23 to 35 years) in similar cases involving child victims, the Court relied on the "descending scale model" for sentencing under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Distracted Trial On Few Days Would Not Have Affected Outcomes

The Court said, "Although the faulty investigation and the distracted trial on a few dates would not have affected the outcome of the conviction, they are additional factors that might not justify the irreversible sentence of capital punishment. There must be a justification for the death sentence, and the quality of the evidence, investigation, and trial must leave no 'Residual Doubt.' All the attending factors must rule out any 'Chance of Reformation,' and thus make it fall in the 'Rarest of Rare' category. It is one of those rare cases where the line that separates the categories of the “Rarest of Rare” from “Rare” is on the razor's edge."

It added, "The biggest challenge before this Court is that when the death penalty is not imposed and when Executive policies permit early release, how do we save the girls from the perverts? The concern bigger than the rape upon a child was her murder, because she had been raped and, if she had survived, would have named the accused who resided in the same area. Once implicated, the punishment for rape of a child is the same, if not more, than that of murder. Section 6 of POCSO Act and the judicial precedents on §302 IPC permit us to commute death to life till the end of natural life."

Noting the irreparable of the two crimes was her murder, the Court said, "to ensure that this pervert is not a potential risk to the other girls, he must remain in prison till the sunset of his virility."

The Court modified the sentence as follows:

Section 302 IPC (Murder): Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life, with the convict not to be released until he has served an actual term of 50 years without counting remission; fine enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, payable as compensation to the victim's family.

Section 6, POCSO Act: Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 23 years; fine enhanced to ₹23 lakhs, similarly payable as compensation.

Title: Anand Singh v. State of Haryana (CRA-D-1055-2023) with State of Haryana v. Anand Singh (MRC-6-2023)

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Rahul Mohan, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Karan Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Vibha Dhiman, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant-convict.

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

Click here to read order