Section 376AB IPC | Death Sentence Commuted to 30-Year Fixed Term; Mother Acquitted of Screening ‘Raja Beta’: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Kamla Devi’s only fault is that she was trying to protect her Raja-beta, for which she cannot be punished under the Indian Penal Code; however condemnable her conduct may be”— In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, commuted the death sentence of a convict to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission for the rape and murder of a 5-year-old girl, while simultaneously acquitting his mother of charges related to the destruction of evidence.

A Betrayal of Trust

The case stems from a harrowing incident on May 31, 2018, involving the victim, affectionately referred to as ‘Laado’ (aged 5 years and 7 months). The convict, Virender @ Bholu, was an employee of the victim's father for over five years. On the fateful day, Virender took the child to his home under the guise of bringing lunch. Taking advantage of the father's slumber, he raped the minor and subsequently murdered her with a kitchen knife. To conceal the crime, he hid her body in a large container used for storing flour (Atta) in his home.

The trial court had convicted Virender under Sections 302, 376AB, 363, 366, and 201 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, awarding him the death penalty. His mother, Kamla Devi, was convicted under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC for allegedly screening the offender.

The Chain of Circumstances and Electronic Evidence

The High Court meticulously analyzed the circumstantial evidence, relying heavily on the "Last Seen" theory. The prosecution established that the victim was last seen accompanying the accused through testimonies of the victim's father and independent witnesses. Crucially, CCTV footage from a nearby school captured Virender holding the child's hand, leading her towards his house.

“The chain of evidence is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

While the Court accepted the CCTV footage, it discarded the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act issued by a computer engineer who was not in lawful control of the device. However, relying on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Bench held that secondary evidence was admissible as the engineer had directly copied the data from the DVR. The Court further invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, holding that since the body was recovered from the accused's home, the burden shifted to him to explain the circumstances, which he failed to do.

Investigative Lapses: The Planted Knife

The judgment offered a stinging critique of the police investigation. The Court rejected the recovery of the murder weapon (a knife) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Bench noted a glaring interpolation in the date on the disclosure statement (changing '3' to '2') and highlighted the improbability of the FSL team missing a knife in a "white polythene bag" during their initial crime scene inspection.

“The main concern it raises is the pathetic quality of the investigation, which was conducted at a place that is too close to the heart of the National Capital.”

The Court concluded that the knife was likely planted or recovered from a location not disclosed in the statement, rendering the recovery evidence inadmissible.

The ‘Raja Beta’ Syndrome: Acquittal of the Mother

In a significant observation on social psychology versus criminal liability, the Court acquitted the mother, Kamla Devi. The prosecution alleged she refused to let villagers search the house and turned off the electricity to hide the body. However, the Court found that her disclosure statement was inadmissible as it led to no new discovery (the body was already found).

The Bench observed that while her conduct in shielding her son was morally reprehensible, it did not meet the legal threshold for criminal conspiracy or destruction of evidence, as she was at work when the murder occurred. The Court remarked that in this part of India, mothers often harbor blind love for their sons, regarding them as 'Raja Betas' regardless of their villainy. The Court held that prioritizing the protection of her son over justice for the victim, while appalling, was not a punishable offense under the specific sections charged absent legal evidence of conspiracy.

Sentencing: Balancing Retribution and Reformation

On the question of the death sentence, the Bench applied the "Crime Test," "Criminal Test," and "Rarest of Rare" test. While acknowledging the gruesomeness of the crime, the Court noted the convict's lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of evidence suggesting he was beyond reformation.

“To espouse a monolithic theory of deterrent efficacy is unscientific... we think it right to shift the emphasis... and not to put all the punitive eggs in the 'hanging' basket.”

The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment but, considering the victim's tender age, imposed a fixed term. Virender shall not be released until he has served 30 years of actual custody without remission. The fine was also enhanced to INR 30 Lakhs, to be paid to the victim's family.

The appeal of Kamla Devi was allowed, resulting in her acquittal. The appeal of Virender was partly allowed; his conviction was upheld, but the death sentence was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life with a minimum actual term of 30 years.

Date of Decision: December 23, 2025