-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
"Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Backed By Pre-Sentencing Inquiry; Death Penalty Cannot Be Mechanical" – In a powerful reiteration of the constitutional safeguards around capital punishment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), on 18th November 2025, commuting the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for the rape and murder of his five-month-old cousin, to life imprisonment without remission for the rest of his natural life.
“This Court is bound to follow the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine with utmost care. The crime, though unspeakably brutal, was not premeditated. Absence of inquiry into reformation makes death penalty constitutionally vulnerable,” observed the Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh, rejecting the trial court’s reference for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366(1) CrPC.
“Guilt Proven Beyond Doubt, But Possibility of Reform Not Foreclosed” – Court Balances Justice with Constitutionality
The Bench was dealing with a reference from the trial court which had sentenced Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit to death under Sections 302 and 376(Ka)(Kha) of IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for committing a rape and murder of a 5-month-old infant girl during a family wedding in Lucknow.
According to the prosecution, the convict had taken the child from her mother around 7 p.m. on 16 February 2020, at a wedding ceremony. After hours of frantic search, the child was found naked and critically injured in a nearby vacant plot. She succumbed to her injuries during treatment.
The trial court had awarded capital punishment, citing the extreme depravity and brutality of the act.
But the High Court noted, “Brutality, however extreme, cannot override the constitutional mandate of evaluating the possibility of reformation. The trial court failed to conduct any inquiry through Probation Officers, jail records or psychological evaluations.”
“Last Seen, Forensic Clues and Fleeing from Scene Establish Guilt”: Circumstantial Chain Complete, Held Court
Rejecting the defence’s plea of false implication, the High Court observed, “The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. The convict was last seen taking the victim from her mother, and was found with her, bloodied and injured, hours later. He fled upon being approached. Forensic findings corroborate presence at the crime scene.”
Investigating Officer and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed that the accused was seen at the venue, was wearing the same clothes recovered later with biological fluid of female origin, and had matching shirt buttons recovered from the scene of offence.
“There is no plausible alternative explanation that fits these facts other than guilt of the accused. The theory of enmity or false implication stands rebutted,” said the Court, firmly upholding the conviction.
The Bench added, “Though the DNA profile could not be matched due to partial degradation, the presence of the convict’s clothing at the scene, stained with biological material, and recovery from the exact location, are legally sufficient in such circumstances.”
“Capital Punishment Must Be Based on Sentencing Rigor, Not Just Shock Value of Crime” – Court Finds Sentencing Process Inadequate
While affirming the conviction, the High Court expressed strong concern over the sentencing approach of the trial court.
“The trial court awarded the death penalty without complying with the sentencing framework evolved by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh and Manoj v. State of M.P.. There was no evidence to conclude that reformation was impossible,” held the Bench.
It further held, “Life imprisonment is the rule; death is the exception. There is no record to show that the convict cannot be reformed. He was 27, had no prior criminal record, and no psychological or sociopathic evaluation was conducted. Death sentence, in these circumstances, cannot be confirmed.”
Referring to recent constitutional rulings including Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) and Sundar @ Sundarrajan, the Court noted that brutality alone cannot make a case ‘rarest of rare’ unless all options for reformation are unquestionably foreclosed.
The Court warned: “The absence of a reasoned sentencing inquiry, as mandated by Section 354(3) CrPC, renders the capital sentence vulnerable to constitutional challenge.”
“Judges Are Not to Be Blood-Thirsty” – Bench Quotes Bachan Singh to Emphasise Restraint in Awarding Death Penalty
Citing Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court invoked the guiding principle that “judges must resist the temptation to impose capital punishment simply because the crime evokes horror or public outrage.”
The Bench stressed, “Courts must rise above retribution. Justice requires that the criminal be considered alongside the crime. When reformation is not ruled out, life without remission becomes the more just alternative.”
“Victim Deserves Justice; But Justice Must Also Be Constitutional” – High Court Preserves Conviction, Replaces Execution with Life Imprisonment Without Remission
While expressing deep anguish over the cruelty inflicted on the infant victim, the Court held:
“The victim, her family, and society deserve justice. But justice must be consistent with constitutional safeguards. This is not a case where death penalty is the only option left.”
Accordingly, the Court commuted the death penalty under Sections 302 and 376 IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act to life imprisonment without remission, to extend till the natural life of the convict.
The sentence under Section 364 IPC (kidnapping) and associated fines were confirmed.
The Court partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2021, upholding the conviction but commuting the death sentence. It also declined confirmation of Capital Case No. 4 of 2021, thereby setting aside the trial court's award of death penalty.
“Let the convict serve life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, without benefit of remission,” directed the Bench.
Date of Decision: 18 November 2025
