4 min readNew DelhiAug 8, 2026 08:00 AM IST
First published on: Aug 8, 2026 at 08:00 AM IST
Referring to the 12-year-old victim as “Laadli” throughout its judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered a fresh hearing in the death penalty case involving two men convicted of allegedly raping and murdering the child in 2018, observing that courts cannot remain “humble spectators” or stay “powerless by remaining silent”.
Justices Anoop Chitkara and Ramesh Chander Dimri found serious but “curable” lapses in the investigation and trial while hearing the appeals of two convicts, aged 35 and 25, who challenged the death penalty awarded to them by the trial court in 2022.
“This court has ample power not to be a humble spectator in such a heinous, brutal crime, and is neither powerless by remaining silent nor can it ignore this lapse. Furthermore, this defect can be cured if the matter is sent back to the trial Court for recording additional evidence,” the August 4 order read.
Noting that in the post-mortem report, the doctors had mentioned a remark that the opinion on the possibility of sexual assault would be given after the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report is shown to them and the investigating officer and the supervisory officers did not seek the opinion of the doctors by forwarding the said report, the court called it “grossly negligent”.
“We cannot blame the doctors for this negligence; it lies squarely at the hands of the investigator, station house officer (SHO), and supervisory officers, including the then head of the district police, all of whom were irresponsible. This lapse has resulted in irregularity, and not any illegality, and this irregularity is curable,” it observed.
12-year-old ‘Laadli’ found dead
According to the prosecution, the girl’s maternal uncle, with whom she had been living since childhood, told the police that on January 13, 2018, the 12-year-old left home in the evening to throw garbage but never returned. Despite extensive searches by the family, she could not be found. The next morning, her body was discovered behind the village chaupal.
The bench found that unless both the accused are given an opportunity to explain the evidence placed on the record through certain circumstances, it cannot be used against them.
During the investigation, one of the witnesses, who was posted as a home guard and happened to be a neighbour of the accused persons and a distant relative of Laadli, allegedly informed the police that these two accused had approached him on January 14, confessed to the crime and asked him to produce them before the police. The prosecution also relied on similar disclosure statements allegedly made by both accused after their arrest.
In February 2022, the trial court convicted both accused and sentenced them to death. They challenged the conviction and death sentence before the high court.
‘Accused should be given opportunity’
The court found that unless both the accused are given an opportunity to explain certain circumstances, the evidence placed on the record through these circumstances, it cannot be used against them. The court further clarified that since it is not an “illegality” but an irregularity, this irregularity has to be “rectified”.
The court also noted that although the trial took nearly four years to conclude, these important lapses went unnoticed. Accordingly, the high court set aside the conviction and death sentence and remanded the case to the trial court.
It directed the trial court to first summon the doctors and record their evidence, then re-examine both accused by putting every incriminating circumstance to them in simple, separate questions, allow them to lead defence evidence if they choose, and thereafter decide the case afresh without being influenced by its earlier judgment.
The court noted that the investigating officer and senior police officials never sent the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report back to the doctors concerned for their opinion. (AI-generated image) 
The bench found that unless both the accused are given an opportunity to explain the evidence placed on the record through certain circumstances, it cannot be used against them.
Share
