She killed a toddler, but court spares her death penalty: ‘Let children not lose mother’

“While a mother has lost her daughter, let the children of the accused not lose their mother to a point of no return. A society is not built upon denying to the children what their mother stole but by ushering in some hope,” the September 23 order read.

Killed over grudge

According to the victim’s grandfather, on November 28, 2021, his wife was playing in the street with their granddaughter when she went inside the house to drink water, even as the toddler continued playing outside. However, when she returned about five minutes later, she could not find the girl.

Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Ravinder Malik said even though the offence was ‘gruesome’, it was not a case where capital punishment was the only appropriate sentence.

During the search, the family allegedly came to know that their neighbour, the accused, had abducted the girl with the intention of killing her. The complaint stated that the alleged motive was a grudge after the toddler’s father stopped his wife from talking to the accused Neelam, who was perceived as a woman of bad character in the neighbourhood.

During the investigation, a man approached the police and said that Neelam had told him that she had buried the girl in a pit. The woman was then apprehended.

She revealed during questioning that while the victim’s grandfather worked in a factory, his son worked in the Punjab Police and used to buy nice things for his children. Seeing this, her own children started making similar demands, which she could not fulfil. On the day of the incident, she took the victim on her scooter to a vacant plot and buried the child in a pit. She stated that no one else was involved in the crime.

The trial court convicted her on April 12, 2024, and awarded her the death sentence on April 18, 2024. Aggrieved, she approached the high court in appeal.

‘Depraved mind’

The woman, through Senior Advocate A D S Sukhija, argued that she had committed the offence because of a grudge. He further argued that there was no evidence of any neurotic or psychotic disorder, psychopathology, disordered behaviour, delusional tendencies or personality traits that would make her dangerous.

He added that the woman belonged to a socially disadvantaged group and that her family had been living in extreme poverty. He argued that her socio-economic circumstances and the demands of her children were relevant mitigating circumstances.

The complainant’s counsel, advocate Atul Goyal, argued that the offence could not be condoned or ignored. He submitted that the woman had buried the child alive in a pit of sand, which, according to him, showed depravity and an absence of sympathy.

‘Accused not a threat to society’

The high court upheld the woman’s conviction, finding that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the entire chain of events and the link evidence established her involvement in the murder.

The court mentioned that even though the offence committed by the woman is “gruesome”, this was not a case where capital punishment was the only appropriate sentence.

The bench clarified that it cannot be held that the accused is beyond reform and is a threat to society at large. “It is evident that the accused also has children of her own and has not exhibited any disorderly or disruptive behaviour. She thus cannot be perceived to be beyond reform and incapable of co-existence in harmony,” it added.

The court highlighted that the woman had maintained “cordial relations” with all fellow inmates and had not indulged in any indiscipline of any nature during her jail time.

Questioning whether capital punishment is the beginning of a sentence or the end of it, the court said that a sentence which affords time for introspection and repentance each day for the crime committed is a sentence served. “The past…serves as a reminder on every new morning, to make good for the sin committed and make efforts for some meaningful contribution,” it added.

The high court, accordingly, commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 years and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the woman.