On May 24, 2021, the family learnt that the girl had gone missing from the residence after a phone call from a person known to the family. The police registered an FIR at around 11 pm on the same night. The next day, the father filed a second complaint naming his neighbour as a suspect, alleging that the convict had not gone to work that day and had taken the victim away and committed the crime. On July 28, 2023, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, while also ordering him to pay ₹30 lakhs in compensation to the victim’s family.
The high court said that it would affectionately call the victim, who was “just 17 days short of her 7th birthday ‘Laadli’, a name that aptly fits her”.
The 54-page order stated, “Laadli was not even 7 years of age, and her first fault was that she was born as a girl, and the second was that she was born to the downtrodden, the poorest of the poor. Even the black thread with a locket around Laadli’s neck and an additional black thread worn at her waist, as supernatural protections which Laadli’s parents believed would protect their girl child from evil forces, could not save her, because the perpetrator was worse than a devil, whose lust could not be controlled by the so-called magical remedies.”
Justices Anoop Chitkara and Ramesh Chander Dimri converted the death penalty of the convict into a rigorous imprisonment of 50 years.
‘Careless investigation’
The accused Anand Singh was arrested and inquired about the mortal remains of the victim. It was alleged that upon the statement of the convict the police recovered the girl’s body from an agricultural field. However it was noted by the court that the police were aware of the presence of the body of the victim before the convict was arrested and hence it was not proved that body was found due to information given by the convict.
The convict’s advocate, Vibha Dhiman argued that the victim’s father had initially received the phone call from a labourer, and the police did not lead any evidence about the informant, his source of information, the searches he had done, or the time at which the victim had gone missing. The state’s counsel, Assistant Advocate General Yuvraj Shandilya, however, contested the submission, calling it irrelevant. Recording the arguments of the state counsel and the amicus curiae Advocate Prateek Gupta, the court noted that an analysis indicated “careless investigation”, but, given the COVID-19 restrictions which were in place at the time of the incident, the investigating agencies’ difficulties were “understandable”, and they had to focus on the most material aspects alone.
The court emphasised that once state took control over all old value systems, it was imperative upon it to ensure that its people, irrespective of “age, caste, class, color, or religion”, treat each other as equals, deserve complete respect, have the right to live an “uninterrupted life with complete dignity”, and are “rational, ethical, compassionate, kind, and empathetic.”
1
Convict must stay jailed till his virility fades, to keep other girls safe from early release.
2
Question raised: how does executive remission policy protect girls once early release kicks in?
3
The graver concern wasn't the assault alone — it was that the child was murdered afterward.
4
Parents' faith in supernatural protection failed — the perpetrator's lust wasn't curbed by any remedy.
5
Every life — young or old, rich or poor, citizen or alien — is equally precious. Its loss is irreparable and can be taken only through due process of law, exercised with extreme care. The court cautioned that even in the name of the greater public good, the State cannot bypass due process to deliver compulsive retribution.
The court, however, underlined additional factors that didn’t justify the “irreversible sentence of capital punishment”. The court pointed to the “quality of the evidence, investigation, and trial” to call it a “careless” investigation.
“It is one of those rare cases where the line that separates the categories of the ‘rarest of rare’ from ‘rare’ is on the razor’s edge. The biggest challenge before this Court is that when the death penalty is not imposed and when executive policies permit early release, how do we save the girls from the perverts?” the verdict said.
Taking a “conscious decision”, the court termed the girl’s murder as the “irreparable” of the two crimes. “..because if the accused had not strangulated her to death, medical science might have saved her life, and no one can rule out this possibility; however, to ensure that this pervert is not a potential risk to the other girls, he must remain in prison till the sunset of his virility.”
Crime and punishment
The ruling underlined the absence of any sentencing guidelines to “guide” the court.
“Even the judicial precedents on proportionality do not shed sufficient light to help us avoid a crash. Clear guidelines are always better than impulse, and it is better to be logical than to vacillate intuitively,” it noted.
“In the absence of distinct sentencing guidelines”, the bench said, “the only process we can follow is the hydraulic force of the descending scale model, which would suggest the median hypothetically starts at the age of consent, with minima toward the age closest to the age of consent and maxima toward the lowest age”.
Therefore, for the offence of the girl’s murder, the court sentenced the convict to “imprisonment for life, with the stipulation that he shall not be released unless he has served 50 years of sentence”, aside from saddling him with a Rs 50 lakh fine which was ordered to be paid to the girl’s family. Similarly, for the offence of assault on the minor victim under the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, the man was handed 23 years of jail time and additionally fined Rs 23 lakh.
(With inputs from Avinash Verma, Avinash is an intern with The Indian Express)
Justices Anoop Chitkara and Ramesh Chander Dimri converted the death penalty of the convict into a rigorous imprisonment of 50 years.
Share
