The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed the death sentence for the sexual assault and murder of a five-year-old girl, reinforcing that extreme brutality against children qualifies as the 'rarest of rare' category warranting capital punishment. The judgment underscores the primacy of forensic and circumstantial evidence in securing convictions under the POCSO Act, while clarifying the judicial threshold for imposing the death penalty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a five-year-old girl in Bhopal on 24 September 2024. Her body was discovered two days later in a white plastic water tank inside Flat F-2, Block A-1, Bajpai Nagar, a residence occupied by the accused, Atul Nihale, along with his mother and sister. The prosecution established that the accused had forcibly dragged the child into the flat, gagged her, used a kitchen knife to facilitate penetration, and caused fatal pelvic injuries. After her death, he wrapped her body and concealed it in the bathroom tank for two to three days.
Procedural History
24.09.2024: Missing person report filed by the child’s mother; FIR registered.
26.09.2024: Body recovered from flat; postmortem conducted by AIIMS Bhopal.
27.09.2024 & 29.09.2024: Two disclosure statements recorded under Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
28.09.2024: Medical examination of accused; semen, pubic hair, and blood samples seized.
14.11.2024: Blood samples of parents collected for DNA comparison.
04.12.2024: DNA report from RFSL Bhopal confirmed match between accused’s blood and bloodstains on clothing and bedding from the flat.
10.03.2025: Special Judge convicted accused under multiple sections of BNS and POCSO Act, sentencing him to death for two counts and life imprisonment for others.
19.11.2025: Appeal and reference heard; judgment reserved.
22.01.2026: Judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The accused sought acquittal or, alternatively, commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The State sought confirmation of the death penalty under Section 407 of BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the circumstantial and forensic evidence, including DNA matches and disclosure statements, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) Whether the brutality of the crime, coupled with the victim’s age and the accused’s criminal history, met the threshold of the 'rarest of rare' doctrine to justify the death penalty under Article 21.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The accused’s counsel argued that the flat was not owned by him and that the prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession. He challenged the integrity of seizure memos and questioned the reliability of disclosure statements under Section 23 BSAd, asserting they were not corroborated by independent evidence. He further contended that the accused’s depression and prior criminal cases were mitigating factors that warranted life imprisonment instead of death.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the chain of evidence was unbroken: the child’s body was found in the accused’s residence; the accused disclosed the location of incriminating articles; DNA from his blood matched stains on the victim’s towel and the bedding recovered from the flat; and the postmortem confirmed sexual assault with a weapon. He emphasized that the accused’s prior convictions and the barbaric nature of the crime - using a knife to enlarge the vaginal canal - rendered the case exceptional.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously dissected the evidence, applying the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. It held that each circumstance - recovery of the body from the accused’s residence, disclosure leading to seizure of blood-stained clothing, DNA matches, and the absence of any alternative hypothesis - was fully established and consistent only with the accused’s guilt.
"The word 'distinctly' means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly', 'unmistakably'. The phrase 'distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered' is the linchpin of the provision."
The Court relied on Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra to uphold the admissibility of the disclosure statements under Section 23 BSAd, noting that the recovery of the knife, T-shirt, and capri directly resulted from the accused’s information. The DNA report from RFSL, admitted under Section 329 of BNSS, was deemed conclusive: the accused’s DNA matched blood on the victim’s towel and the bedding, and the victim’s DNA was found in the tank and on her clothing.
The Court rejected the defense’s claim of mental illness, noting that the accused was found fit to stand trial and showed no signs of psychosis. It distinguished Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, holding that the crime’s calculated cruelty - gagging a child, using a kitchen knife to facilitate rape, and delaying disposal of the body - demonstrated extreme depravity. The accused’s prior criminal record and lack of remorse further negated any mitigating value in his family status or socioeconomic background.
The Court concluded that the case met the 'rarest of rare' standard not merely because of the victim’s age, but because of the sadistic, premeditated, and dehumanizing nature of the violence.
The Verdict
The accused won nothing. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. It held that the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the crime’s exceptional brutality, combined with the accused’s criminal history, rendered it a textbook case of the 'rarest of rare' category under Article 21.
What This Means For Similar Cases
DNA Evidence Is Conclusive in Absence of Contradiction
Practitioners must treat DNA matches between accused and victim’s biological material as decisive, especially when corroborated by recovery of items via disclosure.
Failure to extract Y-chromosome DNA from vaginal swabs does not invalidate other conclusive matches, as held here.
Forensic reports under Section 329 BNSS are admissible if chain of custody is intact.
Disclosure Statements Under Section 23 BSAd Are Powerful Tools
Disclosure statements leading to recovery of incriminating objects are admissible even if they contain confessional content.
The 'distinctly relates' test from Inayatullah must be strictly applied: only the part of the statement directly causing discovery is admissible.
Independent corroboration of the discovery (e.g., witness presence during seizure) strengthens admissibility.
Mitigating Factors Are Overridden by Extreme Brutality
Socioeconomic status, marital status, or family dependence are not mitigating factors when the crime involves extreme sexual violence against a child.
Prior criminal history, even if unconvicted, may be considered as aggravating if it reflects a pattern of predatory behavior.
Courts will not commute death sentences where the act demonstrates sadistic intent, use of weapons for penetration, and deliberate concealment of the body.
