The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the death penalty imposed on Pawan alias Moni for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl, substituting it with rigorous life imprisonment, a mandatory fifty-year minimum term and hefty fines, while laying down strict standards for the admissibility of CCTV evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The State of Haryana prosecuted Pawan alias Moni (the accused) for the abduction, rape, murder and concealment of the body of a seven-year-old girl, “Laadli”, on 08 Oct 2022 in the village of Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 365, 366, 376-AB and 201 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposing the death sentence.
Key Facts
- 08 Oct 2022: Victim “Laadli” (aged 7 years 7 months 23 days) went missing while playing in the village.
- 09 Oct 2022: Villagers discovered a half-burnt body in a Banni/jungle; identified as Laadli.
- 09 Oct 2022: Accused arrested by SI Ishwar Singh (approx. 7-8 pm).
- 10 Oct 2022: Post-mortem conducted; DNA samples collected from victim’s body and clothing.
- 15 Nov 2022: DNA report confirmed male DNA from the accused matched samples on the victim’s clothes.
- 15 Sep 2023: Trial Court delivered its judgment, sentencing the accused to death.
- 16 Sep 2023: Order on the quantum of sentence recorded.
- 11 Aug 2026: High Court pronounced the judgment, commuting the death sentence.
- Various dates (Oct 2022-Dec 2022): Collection, sealing and transfer of forensic parcels; CCTV footage obtained from village petrol pump and private cameras; certificates under Section 65B(4) were not produced.
Procedural History
- 08 Oct 2022: FIR No. 395 lodged at Kalayat Police Station under Sections 365, 366, 376-AB, 302, 201 IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act.
- 09 Oct 2022: Accused apprehended; medical examination and blood sample taken.
- Oct 2022-Dec 2022: Investigation, collection of DNA, crime-scene photographs, and CCTV material.
- 15 Sep 2023: Trial Court convicted and sentenced to death.
- Appeal: Convict filed Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC before the High Court.
- 11 Aug 2026: High Court delivered the present judgment.
The Parties' Positions
- State (Appellant): Argued that the chain of custody was intact, DNA evidence conclusively linked the accused, the “last-seen” theory was reliable, and the crime fell within the “rarest of rare” category justifying death.
- Accused (Respondent): Contended that CCTV footage was inadmissible without a valid Section 65B certificate, that the evidentiary gaps created reasonable doubt, and that mitigating factors warranted commutation of the death penalty.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought affirmation of the death sentence. The respondent sought its commutation to life imprisonment, citing evidentiary defects and mitigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the death sentence imposed for the offences of rape and murder of a minor should be upheld under the “rarest of rare” doctrine, and whether the prosecution’s CCTV evidence, admitted without a Section 65B(4) certificate, could sustain a conviction.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer to argue that the DNA profile and the “last-seen” testimony formed a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, satisfying the golden thread test. It further submitted that the absence of a certificate did not vitiate the evidence because the original digital device was not produced, and the court could rely on the ocular testimony of PW-5.
For the Respondent
The defence invoked Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi to emphasise that without a Section 65B(4) certificate, CCTV footage is inadmissible as a document. It also highlighted mitigating circumstances - the accused’s age (21 years at the time), lack of prior convictions, and a psychological report indicating no active psychopathology - to argue that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reaffirming the principles laid down in Bachan Singh and Sharma v. State that death is an exception and must be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is manifestly inadequate. It examined the evidentiary foundation in three parts:
-
Chain of Custody and DNA Evidence - The Court held that the forensic trail from the crime scene to the DNA laboratory was unbroken, citing the detailed parcel logs (Ex P-68 to P-70) and expert reports. It noted that the DNA profile of the accused matched the semen on the victim’s clothing, satisfying the golden thread requirement.
-
Last-Seen Theory - Relying on State v. Satish and Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar, the Court found that the short interval between the victim’s disappearance and the accused’s last sighting, coupled with the absence of any alternative suspect, rendered the “last-seen” evidence highly probative.
-
CCTV Evidence and Section 65B - The Court examined the statutory requirement under Section 65B(4) that a certificate be produced when the original electronic device is not before the court. It observed that the certificates were not tendered, and the witnesses (PW-6, PW-7, PW-8) expressly denied having issued them. Following Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Mukesh & Anr., the Court concluded that the CCTV footage could not be treated as a primary document and therefore was inadmissible. However, it held that the oral identification of the accused in the footage, corroborated by PW-5’s testimony, sufficed to sustain the conviction.
The Court then turned to sentencing. While acknowledging the gravity of the offences, it applied the rarest of rare test as refined in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar and Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod. The mitigating factors - the accused’s young age, lack of prior criminal history, and the psychological report indicating no active psychopathology - tipped the balance away from capital punishment. The Court also noted the statutory shift under Section 354(3) CrPC that life imprisonment is the norm, with death as an exception.
"The conviction of the appellant Pawan alias Moni for all the charges is upheld, and the sentence shall stand modified as follows:"
Accordingly, the death sentence under Section 302 IPC was commuted to rigorous life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of fifty years, and a fine of Rs 50,00,000 payable as compensation. The death sentence under Section 6 POCSO Act was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for twenty-three years with a fine of Rs 23,00,000. The sentences under Sections 365, 366 and 201 IPC were retained, with default-fine imprisonment reduced to one day per default. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the period already spent in custody was set off under Section 428 CrPC.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal in part. It upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences:
- Section 302 IPC: life imprisonment, minimum 50 years, fine Rs 50,00,000.
- Section 6 POCSO Act: rigorous imprisonment 23 years, fine Rs 23,00,000.
- Sections 365, 366, 201 IPC: rigorous imprisonment for the term awarded by the trial court, default-fine imprisonment of one day per default. All sentences run concurrently; custody already served is credited. The court also ordered destruction of case property after six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
CCTV Evidence Must Meet Section 65B Requirements
- Courts will treat CCTV footage as a document only if a valid Section 65B(4) certificate is produced.
- Absence of the certificate renders the footage inadmissible, though oral identification may still be considered.
- Practitioners must ensure forensic teams obtain and attach the requisite certificate before tendering electronic records.
Rarest-of-Rare Doctrine Applied Rigorously
- Death penalty remains an exception; mitigation (age, lack of prior record, psychological health) can outweigh aggravation.
- Courts will scrutinise the golden thread of circumstantial evidence; any reasonable doubt will preclude capital punishment.
- Sentencing must reflect the statutory preference for life imprisonment under Section 354(3) CrPC.
Sentencing Must Consider Minimum Terms and Compensation
- When commuting death, courts may impose a substantial minimum term (e.g., 50 years) to satisfy retributive and deterrent goals.
- Fines may be directed as compensation to the victim’s family and are enforceable without default-imprisonment.
- All substantive sentences run concurrently unless expressly ordered otherwise.
Practical takeaways for lawyers:
- Verify Section 65B compliance before filing electronic evidence.
- Prepare comprehensive mitigation dossiers (psychological reports, character evidence).
- Anticipate that courts may impose long minimum terms and substantial fines when commuting death sentences.
