Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Natural Life After Upholding Conviction in Child Rape-Murder Case

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the rape and murder of a 10‑year‑old girl and confirmation of the death sentence by the High Court of Uttarakhand. The appeals arose from concurrent findings of guilt under Sections 302, 376, 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act following conviction by the Fast Track Court and affirmation by the High Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of guilt based on last‑seen evidence, recovery of the body from the appellant’s hut and DNA links, but disturbed the sentence. The Court observed that capital punishment required special scrutiny and that the sentencing courts had not sufficiently considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances before concluding the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “224. This aspect was dealt with extensively in Santosh Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] where the Court articulated the test to be a two‑step process to determine whether a case deserves the death sentence — firstly, that the case belongs to the ‘rarest of rare’ category, and secondly, that the option of life imprisonment would simply not suffice. For the first step, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have to be identified and considered equally. For the second test, the court had to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed as the sentencing aim of reformation was unachievable, for which the State must provide material.” The Court therefore commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life without remission (natural life).

Background The prosecution case arose from the disappearance on 28 July 2018 of a ten‑year‑old girl (referred to as X) while she was playing near her home. Witnesses stated the appellant had taken the children to his hut and gave the others money to go to the shop while X remained. The dead body of X was later discovered concealed under empty cement bags in the appellant’s hut. Post‑mortem findings recorded manual throttling as the cause of death and injuries indicative of sexual assault. DNA evidence adduced through Forensic Science Laboratory reports linked hair and garments found at the scene to the appellant and to the deceased. Child witnesses and other eyewitnesses identified the appellant as the last person seen with X and testified to the recovery of the body.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376(AB), 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO and imposed death penalty, holding the case to be in the “rarest of rare” category because of the cruelty of the offence. The High Court affirmed conviction and confirmed the death sentence on reference under Section 366 CrPC, relying on last‑seen theory, recovery and DNA consistency. Before this Court, counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence; the State supported both.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and accepted that the prosecution had proved identity, cause of death, last‑seen presence and the DNA links beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore declined to interfere with conviction. On sentencing, the Court reviewed precedents including Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur, Gudda, Manoj and Sundar and reiterated that brutality alone could not be the sole criterion for imposing death. The Court noted absence of detailed analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors by the courts below, considered reports including probation and psychological evaluation of the appellant (which recorded poor socio‑economic background, early work history and no psychiatric disturbance), and found that the second limb of the Santosh Bariyar test (that life imprisonment would be an inadequate alternative) was not proved. The Supreme Court accordingly commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for the natural life of the appellant. The appeals were partly allowed and the impugned High Court order was modified to that extent.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 861 Case Title: Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment