'Rarest Of Rare Case': Punjab Court Awards Death Penalty To Woman For Burying Neighbour's 2-Yr-Old Daughter Alive
A Punjab Court has awarded the death penalty to a 32-year-old woman for burying her neighbour's 2-year-old daughter alive over jealousy and an inferiority complex with the child's family.The convict Neelam stuffed sand in the mouth of the child and buried her alive in a pit already dug in a deserted place, without there being any fault of the child or any provocation from her side and...
A Punjab Court has awarded the death penalty to a 32-year-old woman for burying her neighbour's 2-year-old daughter alive over jealousy and an inferiority complex with the child's family.
The convict Neelam stuffed sand in the mouth of the child and buried her alive in a pit already dug in a deserted place, without there being any fault of the child or any provocation from her side and this reveals her brutal and abnormal mindset, noted the Court.
While stating that the case comes under "rarest of the rare case", Sessions Judge Munish Singal said, "There cannot be more graver, heinous and barbaric crime than burying alive a girl of tender age of 2-3/4 years of age who must not have understood the acts of her next door neighbour."
Court stated that ordinarily, murder is grave by its nature, more so, when the perpetrator of the crime is a known person, it is graver and the rarest of rare, which warrants a strong deterrent judicial hand. In the case on hand, the convict took the victim from the street across from her house where she was playing and killed her brutally by burying her alive in a pit.
Indeed, such a criminal is a danger to society at large and is beyond reformation and rehabilitation. The manner in which crime has been committed is so intense that it has shocked the collective conscience of the society in extreme indignation of the community, added the Court.
The judge further opined that the accused had not acted on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and she had very meticulously, cleverly and deliberately planned the crime against an innocent and helpless child.
Adding that the convict is lacking in basic human values or psyche which can be amenable for any reformation, the judge said, "The entire act of committing murder of small girl child by burying her alive is a scar on the human values and the accused has broken the faith of neighbours and the faith in humanity."
In 2021, an FIR under section 364 (kidnapping with intent to kill) IPC was lodged in Ludhiana against Neelam after the girl had gone missing. Police later added sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the IPC after the child died.
According to the prosecution, after Dilroz couldn't be found anywhere, police officials were informed that the accused had taken the child in a vacant plot on her scooty. During the search, the police found some fresh sand in a pit. On suspicion, when the sand was removed from the pit it was found that Dilroz was lying in an unconscious position and her mouth and other parts of her body were covered with the sand. The child was taken to the Hospital, where the Doctor declared her brought dead.
Although there was no direct evidence against the accused, the prosecution has enumerated circumstantial evidence including, "last seen theory", CCTV footage, Various Tower Locations of the mobile which was carried by accused Neelam when she carried minor Dilroj, the motive of the crime, jealousy towards the family of minor Dilroz and extra-judicial confession of the accused.
After examining the evidence, the Court noted that "the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused from very cogent and convincing evidence and other attending circumstances and the disclosure statement made by the accused has corroborated the said evidence."
The judge said that the vital link in the chain i.e. the confessional statement made by accused Neelam. "Her extra-judicial confessional statement is a major piece of evidence against her," court stated.
Neelum had confessed to her family friend Gurpreet Singh, that she had buried the deceased child alive in order to frighten her family because she did not like how her father used to brought gifts for his children.
"No doubt, extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, but nevertheless, it can be proved like any other fact in accordance with law", the Court said.
Reliance was placed upon Kulvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1777], in which extra-judicial confession was relied on by the prosecution in a case in which the accused had gone to the Ex-Sarpanch of the village disclosing that they had committed the murder of the deceased it was held by Supreme Court that deposition of Ex-Sarpanch in respect of extra-judicial confession made to him by accused was a trustworthy piece of evidence.
"The free and voluntary confession deserves due credit as it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. Accused Neelam confided in Gurpreet Singh in the hope that she would get help and protection. The confession has been made by her on the day of incident at about 9 p.m. and it is not alleged to have been procured under any undue influence, coercion or pressure and the statement of Gurpreet Singh was also recorded on the same day at about 10 p.m. outside the house of Neelam and the witness Gurpreet Singh has no reason to state falsely," the Court observed.
In light of the above, the Court held that the prosecution has successfully proved its charges against accused Neelam that she kidnapped minor Dilroz Kaur and committed her murder by causing her death and then causing the disappearance of her body and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302, 364 and 201 of IPC.
Rarest Of The Rare Case
The Court observed that the convict took the victim from the street across from her house where she was playing and killed her brutally by burying her alive in a pit. Indeed, such a criminal is a danger to society at large and is beyond reformation and rehabilitation.
It said that the "manner in which crime has been committed is so intense that it has shocked the collective conscience of the society in extreme indignation of the community."
The accused has not acted on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and she has very meticulously, cleverly and deliberately planned the crime against an innocent and helpless child, added the judge.
The Court also took note of the report of the Superintendent, Women Jail stating that it "speaks volumes that the convict was beyond all possibility of reformation."
"The convict is lacking in basic human values or psyche which can be amenable for any reformation. The entire act of committing murder of a small girl child by burying her alive is a scar on human values and the accused has broken the faith of neighbours and the faith in humanity," it said.
In light of the above, the Court opined, the present case falls within the purview of "rarest of rare cases" and calls for the imposition of capital punishment upon the convict and any lesser sentence would do grave injustice not only to the victim and her family but to the collective conscience of the society as well. Accused Neelam is a menace to society and she continues to be so and cannot be reformed.
Title: State v. Neelum
BD Gupta, Addl.PP for the State assisted by Parupkar Singh Ghumman, Advocate for complainant.
Convict Neelam in custody represented by Varinder Jit Singh Randhawa, Advocate and Seema Sangowal, Advocate.