Punjab and Haryana High Court reduces man's death penalty in minor's rape, murder; pillories mom for 'blind love for raja beta'

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted a man's death sentence for the rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old girl to rigorous imprisonment for life, and acquitted his mother, observing there is no IPC section to punish her for "trying to protect her Raja beta".

Sentencing the convict to rigorous imprisonment for life with 30 years of jail without remission, the court opined that the murder was, apparently, because of panic to destroy the evidence of rape and not a premeditated act. It also increased the fine amount to Rs 30 lakh.

Pronouncing the verdict, the bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur also observed that family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their "precious" sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as 'Raja Betas'.

While acquitting the mother of all charges against her, the judges pointed out that she prioritised shielding her son instead of informing the police or seeking justice for the victim. "This social attitude, however appalling, is not new; it is deeply embedded in the region's patriarchal mindset and culture," they said.

A trial court in 2020 condemned Virender alias Bholu to death and sentenced his mother Kamla Devi to rigorous imprisonment for conspiracy and destruction of evidence in the 2018 rape and murder case.

The high court, in its December 23 verdict, observed that while deterrence through threat of death may still be a promising strategy in some frightful areas of murderous crime, to espouse a monolithic theory of its deterrent efficacy is unscientific.

"So we think it right to shift the emphasis, to accept composite factors of penal strategy and not to put all the punitive eggs in the 'hanging' basket but hopefully to try the humane mix," it said.

"It appears that the subsequent murder was because of panic to destroy evidence of rape and not a premeditated act. Therefore, the convict's life should not be taken away by the judicial process, and instead, to save the children and females, he can be incapacitated by imposing a suitable sentence that is also proportionate to the heinous and gruesome crime of raping and killing a girl aged five-and-a-half years, whom the accused was well familiar with," the high court stated.

It also observed that there was no allegation to substantiate that there was no possibility of the reformation of the convict on the death row, which creates an alternative view that would not validate the capital punishment.

This gives rise to two views -- one favouring capital punishment when in a situation keeping a criminal alive is so dangerous that taking away life remains the only option, and the other view is to keep such a convict in custody for the longest possible time permissible under the law to do substantial justice to all concerned, the court further said.

"Therefore, when two views are possible before this court, to impose or not to impose a death sentence, then the view for not awarding the capital punishment must be preferred over the other extreme irreversible sentence," it said.

The court said any sentence to be proportionate must be stable and balanced like a table, and for any table to be stable, all its legs must be comparable. "Thus, the courts, while awarding a sentence, are under an obligation to consider the (a) crime, (b) victim, (c) criminal and his family, and (d) society and the state".

It said the convict has no criminal antecedents, and his conduct in prison is not violative, which makes reformation possible. "To save the other kids and females, the convict must stay inside the four walls of the prison until he is closer to the sunset of his virility," it observed.

"In the light of the referred judicial precedents, the death sentence is commuted to the rigorous imprisonment for life; however, considering the victim's age to be five years and seven months, we are convinced to impose a sentence of 30 years, without remission, which, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, would be justified and would also safeguard the other girls on the street from the pervertedness of the convict," the verdict stated.

The High Court also acquitted the convict's mother, Kamla Devi, of all charges against her.

It, however, said, "Unfortunately, in this part of India, family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their precious sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as 'Raja Betas.' "Kamla Devi, after discovering that her Raja-beta, Bholu, was not as gullible as his name suggested, and he had assaulted and brutally killed a girl-child aged five, prioritised shielding her son instead of informing the police or seeking justice for Laado. This social attitude, however appalling, is not new; it is deeply embedded in the region's patriarchal mindset and culture." "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. Thus, there is no legally admissible evidence to make out a case for criminal conspiracy or for destruction of evidence against Kamla Devi," the high court bench said.

The girl was raped and murdered in May 2018 by Virender alias Bholu, an employee of her father who worked as a small-time tent installer. Virender had been working with him for about five to six years.

On May 31, that year, the girl's father and Virender went to install a tent a short distance away. Virender went to the victim's home to get the lunch of the victim's father.

While returning, the girl accompanied Virender. As the girl's father napped after lunch, Virender took the girl to his home, where he raped her and then killed her with a kitchen knife. He then hid the body in a container where his mother used to store flour.

Kamla Devi was not at home that time. PTI CHS VSD NSD NSD