Four years after a trial court awarded death sentence to two persons for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in 2018, the Punjab and Haryana high court has remanded back the case after it found some “irregularities” in the trial.
It was on February 18, 2022, a fast-track court in Panipat had awarded death penalty to accused Pradeep Kumar, 32, and Sagar, 26 for the rape of the minor girl reported on January 14, 2018, at a village in Panipat district. The victim was staying at the residence of her maternal uncle and the accused had kidnapped her when she came out of the house to dump garbage at 7pm. When the girl did not return home, her family filed a complaint. At 11pm on the same day, the girl’s body was recovered from a deserted place on the outskirts of the village. A few hours later, the accused were arrested and booked under Sections 302, 201-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The high court bench of justice Anoop Chitkara and justice RC Dimri was hearing appeals filed in 2022 by the accused against the trial court judgment and murder reference sent for the confirmation.
{{/usCountry}}The high court bench of justice Anoop Chitkara and justice RC Dimri was hearing appeals filed in 2022 by the accused against the trial court judgment and murder reference sent for the confirmation.
{{/usCountry}}The court found 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. “The doctors made it clear that they could offer a final opinion only after receiving the report, which had to be forwarded to them by the police officials concerned. Despite receiving the FSL report, which detected human semen on the victim’s vaginal swabs and slides, we find no indication that the report was sent to the doctors to obtain their final opinion regarding sexual assault,” the court observed.
The court further added that it was “grossly negligent” on the part of the investigating officer and the supervisory officers not to seek the opinion of the doctor by forwarding the FSL report in question. “We cannot blame the doctors for this negligence; it lies squarely in the hands of the investigator, 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. This negligence was exacerbated as during the trial, neither the public prosecutor nor the trial judge cared to notice the omission, and they concluded the trial hurriedly,” it remarked, adding that the “omission and irregularity” can only be rectified by remanding the matter to the trial court to consider examining the doctors as the court witnesses.
The court also found that some incriminating evidence that appeared against both the accused was apparently not brought to the attention of any of the accused and similar set of questions were put to them during the trial even as evidence against them was different.
“Unless both the accused are given an opportunity to explain these circumstances, the evidence brought on the record through these circumstances cannot be used against them, but since it is not an illegality but an irregularity, this irregularity has to be rectified,” it said, adding that these “deficiencies” are curable, and once cured, would neither cause any prejudice to the accused nor failure of justice to the victim.
The bench while remanding the matter back to trial court requested for expeditious proceedings and ordered that the court would separately put all the incriminating evidence to both the accused by making small questions according to the facts and evidence and after that, afford them an opportunity to lead defence evidence, if they want to do so, and pass a judgment.