'Monster Like Conduct': Punjab & Haryana High Court Confirms Death Penalty To Man Who Kidnapped, Murdered 7 Yrs Old
Observing that the incident is an example of "monster like conduct", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has confirmed death penalty awarded to a man for kidnapping and murdering a 7-year-old boy in 2010.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, "the instant case is of the gruesome murder of a child. It exemplifies dehumanized, besides monster like conduct of the convict- appellant. As such, for the reasons above, and, also for the well made reasons by the learned trial Judge concerned, in his sentencing the convict- appellant to capital punishment, this Court accepts the Murder Reference. The death sentence imposed upon the convict-appellant, by the learned convicting Court, thus is confirmed,"
These observations were made while hearing the murder reference made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Ferozpur for confirmation of death sentence awarded and appeal of convict Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha , who was convicted for kidnanpping and murdering a 7-year-old child and sentenced to death.
Facts in Brief
According to the prosecution, Singh had kidnapped a 7-year-old boy Hardik Sharma and demanded Rs. 4 lakh from his father as ransom. After the victim's father expressed his inability to pay the amount, Singh reduced the amount to Rs. 2 lakh. Even though Singh took the ransom amount, the child was never returned and was later found dead.
The counsel appearing for Singh argued that the trial court has erroneously connected him with the phone number used for ransom calls.
There are no recorded conversations which occurred between the complainant and the unknown kidnappers, and, though there is only a CDR, which was taken in possession, however, the same was not proved as per law, therebys the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the genesis of the prosecution case, relating to a ransom call being made by the accused to the father of the deceased, he added.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that as per the testimony of witness the victim was last seen with Singh.
The Court noted that, "The effect thereof is but naturally, qua the apposite last seeing together theory, as espoused by PW-12, thus acquiring the firmest evidentiary vigour,”
The bench also took note of the disclosure statement given by Singh which led to recovery of "one waxen black envelope containing currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each, total amounting to Rs. One lac."
Singh also stated in an statement given to the police that at the time of incident he threw the books of the victim into the wild shrubs, which was later recovered.
Speaking for the bench Justice Thakur also highlighted that, the mobile number used for ransom calls was proved by certificate issued by the service provider and all the chain of circumstantial evidences are proved by "cogent evidence" by the prosecution.
The bench further noted that the hair which was recovered from the fist of the victim matched with the DNA of Singh.
"In a circumstantial evidence based case, the incriminatory link vis-a-vis the last seeing together of the accused, and, the deceased, is of grave importance, importantly when the said link is spoken by a credible witness, through his making an untainted, and, unblemished testification before the learned trial Judge. Consequently, the same acquires immense evidentiary vigour," the bench opined.
Consequently, the affirmative matchings of the foot moulds, of the accused, as collected from the crime site, thus with the foot moulds, as became collected through, do acquire potent evidentiary vigour, it added.
Adding that it "does not appeal to the judicial conscience of this Court", the bench rejected the argument that the case does not fall in the category of "rarest of the rare."
In the light of the above, the Court directed the District Magistrate to schedule the execution of the capital punishment and said that execution should be done after the lapse of the period of appeal against the High Court's decision.
Title: State of Punjab v. Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. H.S.Mann, Advocate with
Mr. G.K.Sarabha, Advocate,
Ms. Avneet Kaur, Advocate and
Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondent (in MRC No. 4 of 2016) and for the appellant (in CRA-D-80-DB-2014)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 192