Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man from Palwal man to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment. He was convicted by the trial court at Palwal in October 2023 of repeatedly raping his 17-year-old daughter and making her pregnant.The court ruled that, though among the most heinous, the convict’s crime failed to meet the Supreme Court’s rigorous “rarest of rare” criteria for capital punishment.
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, found the man’s conviction in order as there was sufficient evidence against him, but commuted his death sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, highlighting the judiciary’s cautious approach to capital punishment even in cases of extreme depravity.
“It goes without saying that the accused having subjected his minor daughter to repeated penetrative sexual assault and having impregnated her has committed one of the most heinous crimes of the gravest form and would hardly call for any kind of leniency in the matter of sentence,” the High Court observed in its judgment.
The bench, however, made it clear that despite the abhorrent nature of the crime, “the case is not such to be termed as ‘rarest of rare cases’ so as to justify the death sentence.”
Considering the grave nature of the offence and the breach of trust involving a father sexually assaulting his own child, the Palwal sessions court had condemned the accused to the death penalty. In its verdict, the Palwal court had relied on medical evidence, testimony of the victim and other corroborative evidence that established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Jile Singh was convicted of having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 506(II) IPC for criminal intimidation.
The trial judge had sentenced him to capital punishment, subject to the High Court’s confirmation, for the heinousness of the crime—a father repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter for over four years, getting her pregnant, and warning her with terrible consequences if she opened her mouth.
The judgment of the High Court outlined the voluminous evidence that confirmed the accused’s culpability.
The victim, who was a minor at the time of the filing of the FIR on 2 October 2020, narrated a consistent and ghastly story of abuse. In the statement before the police under under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she described how, after her mother’s death, her father had started subjecting her to continuous penetrative sexual assault, leading to pregnancy and the delivery of a female child.
She explained, “My father has been perpetrating physical excesses on me on a continuous basis and intimidated me with serious repercussions if I revealed it to anyone. I am pregnant and have a 4-month pregnancy. My father has fathered the child.” She added that her father kept her grandparents away so that they would not know about the abuse. Multiple evidence supported the testimony of the victim.
Medical examination done at the Civil Hospital, Palwal, established evidence of sexual assaults. Forensic examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, disclosed a “perfect match” between the DNA profile of seminal stains on the clothes of the victim and swabs and that of the blood sample of the accused. Also, the DNA profile of the baby was the same as that of the accused, conclusively determining paternity.
The High Court found no inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, dismissing the accused’s claim that the victim fabricated allegations due to an affair with a scrap dealer.
The court took the confession by the victim of being familiar with the dealer as proof of her honesty since she did not keep the relationship a secret and there was no proof to defend the argument that the person was the father.
Also read: In 2024, most death sentences handed out by Indian courts were for murder, not sexual offences
High Court’s Reasoning for Commuting the Death Sentence
While upholding the conviction, the High Court carefully considered if the death penalty was justified. Based on the evidence on record and the gravity of the offence, trial court had considered the case as “rarest of rare,” citing a serious breach of trust in a father-daughter relationship, the long duration of abuse, and the consequent pregnancy.
It also directed Rs 10.5 lakh as compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020.
But the High Court, following Supreme Court precedents, held that the case, though heinous, did not reach the level for the award of capital punishment.
The bench relied heavily on the SC’s pathbreaking decision in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), which determined that the death penalty must be reserved only for the “rarest of rare” situations in which the brutality of the crime and its effects on society preclude any chance for reform or leniency.
The court also mentioned Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) where a three-judge Supreme Court bench commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years without remission for rape and murder of a minor girl by an acquaintance of the victim.
Equally, in Kashi Nath Singh alias Kallu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand (2023) 7 SCC 317, the Supreme Court ruled life imprisonment instead of death in a similar offence.
The High Court explained that, even though the “heinous and gravest form” of the offence was perpetrated, there were a number of factors which militated against the death sentence.
Firstly, the bench noted the lack of murder or further bodily harm over and above the sexual assault, which tends to typify “rarest of rare” cases. Secondly, although the accused’s conduct was a deep betrayal of trust, the court saw no indication of harm to society as a whole or of a pattern of criminal conduct outside the family, which could thrust the case into the extreme penalty category. Thirdly, the bench took into account the chance for reformation, observing that the accused, although culpable of a base act, did not have characteristics indicative of incorrigibility, an important consideration in death penalty matters.
The court focused on a balanced stance, proclaiming, “It goes without saying that the accused having subjected his minor daughter to repeated penetrative sexual assault and having got her pregnant has committed one of the most heinous crimes of the gravest form and would hardly call for any kind of leniency in the matter of sentence.”
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Why Supreme Court hasn’t confirmed a single death sentence in the last two years