CCTV footage inadmissible due to procedural lapses, disclosure statements excluded; stringent life terms with hefty fines imposed as compensation to victim’s family
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 11, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of Pawan alias Moni for the brutal rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl named Laadli in Kaithal district, Haryana, but commuted his death sentences to rigorous life imprisonment with a minimum actual term of 50 years. The court ordered enhanced fines amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 23 lakhs under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act respectively, to be paid as compensation to the victim’s family.
The accused had been convicted under multiple provisions, including Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), 376-AB (rape of a girl under 12 years), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The heinous crime involved the abduction of Laadli on October 8, 2022, her sexual assault, strangulation leading to death, and partial burning of her body to destroy evidence.
The prosecution’s case heavily relied on scientific and circumstantial evidence. DNA profiling established the presence of the accused’s semen on the victim’s burnt clothes, conclusively linking him to the crime. The chain of custody of the evidence was meticulously proven through affidavits and recovery memos, ensuring the scientific reports’ reliability.
A key element in the conviction was the “last seen” testimony of a witness who identified the accused walking with the victim shortly before her disappearance. Despite the accused’s denial, the court held that the short time gap between the last sighting and discovery of the victim’s body made it impossible for any other person to be responsible. The burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain his presence with the victim, which he failed to do.
The prosecution also submitted CCTV footage showing the accused with the victim and later purchasing petrol near the crime scene. However, the court ruled the CCTV footage inadmissible under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act due to failure to produce valid certificates from the device operators. Despite this, the court accepted corroborative ocular testimony confirming the accused’s involvement.
The accused’s disclosure statements were excluded from evidence under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act as they did not lead to any discovery of new facts and were made while in police custody.
On sentencing, while the trial court had imposed the death penalty citing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, the High Court applied extensive judicial precedents and mitigating factors. Psychological and sociological assessments indicated the accused was mentally fit without pathological traits but the court acknowledged the gravity of the crime. Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court concluded that life imprisonment till natural death with no remission better served justice and public interest.
The judgment also laid down a proportional sentencing framework for rape under the POCSO Act, considering the victim’s young age, cruelty involved, and the single perpetrator. The court fixed the sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault at 23 years rigorous imprisonment with enhanced compensation.
The court directed all fines to be recovered from the accused and disbursed equally among the victim’s parents and siblings. It also ordered concurrent running of all substantive sentences and allowed credit for time already spent in custody.
This verdict underscores the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the sanctity of life while delivering stringent punishment in heinous crimes against minors. It also highlights the crucial role of scientific evidence and the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in electronic evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Bottom Line:
Death sentence for rape and murder of a minor girl commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life with a minimum actual sentence of 50 years - DNA evidence and last-seen testimony crucial in conviction - Section 65-B certificate for CCTV footage not proved, rendering footage inadmissible - Disclosure statements inadmissible under Section 26 Indian Evidence Act - Sentencing guided by "rarest of rare" doctrine and proportionality principles.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 365, 366, 376-AB, 201; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section 6; Indian Evidence Act Sections 25, 26, 27, 65-B, 106; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 173(2), 366(7), 374(2), 428
State of Haryana v. Pawan alias Moni, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2959057
