Home  > Recent Judgements  > Convict Must Remain Behind Bars Until He Is Close To ‘Sunset of Virility’: P&H High Court Commutes Death Penalty in Rape, Murder Of 5-Yr-Old

Dec  26- 2025

Convict Must Remain Behind Bars Until He Is Close To 'Sunset of Virility': P&H High Court Commutes Death Penalty in Rape, Murder Of 5-Yr-Old

STATE OF HARYANA V. VIRENDER @ BHOLU

Preface

In a deeply disturbing case involving the rape and murder of a fiveandahalf-year-old child, the Punjab and Haryana High Court commuted the death sentence awarded to the convict, Virender alias Bholu, to rigorous imprisonment for life with a minimum of 30 year’s actual incarceration without remission, along with a fine of ₹30 lakhs payable to the victim’s family.

While affirming the conviction of Virender beyond reasonable doubt, the Court declined to uphold capital punishment, emphasizing reformative justice, proportional sentencing, and the constitutional mandate to prefer life over death where two views are possible.

Key Findings of The High Court

The Division Bench observed the horrifying circumstances of the crime, noting the absolute trust reposed by the child in the convict. The Court’s observations, reproduced verbatim, are striking:

“The relevant facts proved and established on the record indicate the gruesome crime because Laado was walking with the convict, swaying her one hand and letting the convict hold her other hand in absolute trust, without the mental age or information to suspect the probable evil of a devil.”

Despite the brutality, the Court took into account that the convict:

  • Had no criminal antecedents, and
  • Displayed non-violent conduct in prison, making reformation a possibility.

In a significant and much-discussed observation, the Bench stated:

“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.”

Death Penalty Not Warranted: Court’s Reasoning

Relying on the psychological evaluation conducted by a Board comprising a psychiatrist, medical officer, and psychologist, the Court noted that:

“Virender does not have any significant mental health problems.”

However, the Court found no material to suggest that the convict was incapable of reformation, a crucial requirement for imposing the death penalty under established jurisprudence.

The Bench categorically held:

“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… not to put all the punitive eggs in the ‘hanging’ basket but hopefully to try the humane mix.”

It further clarified that the murder was not premeditated, but committed in panic to destroy evidence of rape:

“The subsequent murder was because of panic to destroy evidence of rape and not a premeditated act.”

Two Views Theory: Life Must Prevail Over Death

The Court invoked the well-settled principle that when two views are possibleone favouring death and the other lifethe latter must be preferred:

“When two views are possible before this Court, to impose or not to impose death sentence, then the view for not awarding the capital punishment must be preferred over the other extreme irreversible sentence.”

It also found no evidence to show that the convict would pose a continuing menace incapable of being controlled through prolonged incarceration.

Acquittal of the Convict’s Mother

The High Court acquitted Kamla Devi, the convict’s mother, who had been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 201 and 120-B The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In a candid observation, the Court remarked:

“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.”

The Bench held that:

  • Her disclosure statement was inadmissible,
  • There was no independent evidence of conspiracy, and
  • Mere resistance to entry did not establish guilt.

Facts In Brief

  • On May 31, 2018, Virender took the victim Laado while going to collect lunch.
  • CCTV footage showed him leading the child by hand towards his house.
  • When the child went missing, villagers searched and reached Virender’s home.
  • The child’s body was recovered from a drum concealed in the compound.
  • Medical evidence confirmed rape and murder.

Despite serious investigative lapses, including weak forensic linkage and questionable recovery of the alleged weapon, the Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence remained intact.

Sentence Must Be “Stable and Balanced”

The Bench used a compelling metaphor to explain proportional sentencing:

“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.”

The Court reiterated that sentencing must consider:The Crime,The Victim,The Criminal and his family, andSociety and the State.

Taking into account the victim’s tenderage (5 years and 7 months), the Court imposed:

  • Life imprisonment with a minimum of 30 years without remission, and
  • Fine of ₹30,00,000, to be distributed equally among the victim’s parents and siblings.

The Court directed all authorities to cooperate in tracing the family to ensure proper disbursal of compensation.

Conclusion

This judgement reflects the High Court’s attempt to strike a delicate balance between retribution, deterrence, and reformation, while firmly safeguarding societal interests. By commuting the death sentence yet ensuring prolonged incarceration beyond the convict’s prime years, the Court reaffirmed that justice must be humane, proportionate, and constitutionally soundeven in the face of the most heinous crimes.