The Supreme Court upheld a stepfather’s conviction for sexually assaulting and murdering a six-year-old girl but ruled that he must remain in prison for the rest of his natural life instead of being executed.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi has said the gravity of the crime did not, by itself, establish that he was beyond reform or that no sentence short of death would meet the ends of justice.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
The Supreme Court substituted that penalty with imprisonment for the whole of the convict’s remaining natural life, without remission. His convictions and the sentences imposed for the other offences remain in force.
The child’s mother married the appellant in August 2017 and moved with her daughter to his home in Kushalgarh, Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, he subsequently subjected the child to repeated sexual assault, threatened the mother when she objected and restricted her movements.
The prosecution alleged that the child was assaulted on April 21 and 22, 2018, and that her condition deteriorated. On April 23, after the mother pressed for medical treatment, she heard the child scream and saw the appellant throttling her. A post-mortem examination found that the child had died of asphyxia caused by throttling. It also recorded an injury indicative of sexual assault.
The mother was the sole eyewitness to the killing. The Supreme Court examined her account alongside the medical findings, telephone records, the child’s disclosure, an extra-judicial confession and the appellant’s conduct. It found her testimony reliable on the central events and sufficiently corroborated. The child and her mother were not named in the judgment to protect their identities.
A significant issue in the appeal was how the mother’s evidence had been tested at trial. Her original cross-examination was conducted by a legal aid lawyer appointed on the same day she testified. In May 2025, the Supreme Court directed a further cross-examination, which took place the following month.
After considering both rounds of testimony, the Court held that the appellant had received a full and fair opportunity, through counsel of his choice, to challenge the mother’s account. The earlier deficiency had therefore been cured and did not invalidate the trial.
The Bench also rejected the defence challenges based on alleged inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence, an alibi and defects in the investigation. It held that the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376AB and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, were affirmed.
The Court separately scrutinised the sentencing process. It noted that the trial court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death on the same day. In a capital case, the Bench said, the accused must have a meaningful opportunity to present material about his personal circumstances and prospects of reform before sentence is decided. That material had not been placed before either the trial court or the High Court.
The Supreme Court considered additional material during the appeal, including a mitigation investigation report and information about the appellant’s conduct in prison. It acknowledged the exceptional gravity of the crime: the sexual assault of a child by a guardian and her killing to conceal the abuse.
At the same time, the Court considered the appellant’s deprived childhood, absence of prior convictions, satisfactory prison conduct and efforts at self-improvement. It found that the State had not established that he was incapable of reform. The Bench concluded that imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, with no remission, was an available and adequate sentence.
The Court stressed that this sentence carries no prospect of release through remission. It affirmed the remaining imprisonment and fine sentences, directed that substantive sentences run concurrently, and disposed of the appeals.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
