High Court decries mother’s ‘shielding’ of rape-murder convict son, awards 30-year sentence: 'Blind love for raja beta'

The court levied a Rs 30 lakh fine on him, payable to the victim's family.

• Punjab and Haryana HC commutes death sentence to 30 years for rape and murder
• Court acquits mother, citing her attempt to shield son but condemns her actions
• Convict fined Rs 30 lakh, payable to victim's family

Did our AI summary help?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a 30-year jail term on a man convicted of raping and murdering a five-year-old girl in 2018, while making pointed remarks about family dynamics in the region.

According to a report by The Indian Express, Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur reviewed an appeal from a mother and son, both previously convicted in the case. The trial court had sentenced the son to death and the mother to seven years of rigorous imprisonment on January 24, 2020.

On May 31, 2018, the victim, daughter of a tent installer, was taken by his employee of five to six years. The man brought her to his home, assaulted her sexually, killed her using a kitchen knife, and stuffed her body into a large storage container his mother had emptied, according to the report.

His mother was away on duty at the time. Villagers later mentioned seeing the girl with him heading to his house. Locals checked CCTV footage from a nearby school, which captured him holding her hand.

Family members and others arrived at the house, where the mother was now present. She denied seeing the girl or her son and blocked entry. A cousin spotted the container in the yard, revealing the body inside, the report said.

Charges against the man included Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366, 363 (kidnapping), 201 of the IPC, plus Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The mother faced charges under 120-B, 366, 363, and 201.

“Unfortunately, in this part of India, family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their ‘precious’ sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as ‘Raja Betas’,” the court has been quoted as saying.

The bench highlighted the mother's efforts to protect her son. “The mother, after discovering that her Raja-beta, was not as gullible as his name suggested, and he had assaulted and brutally killed a girl-child aged five, prioritised shielding her son instead of informing the police or seeking justice for the girl,” it noted.

This behaviour stemmed from “orthodox conditioning” and a “deeply embedded” patriarchal mindset, the court said, calling it an appalling yet common social attitude. In contrast, a civilized society would prioritize justice for the child over the son, preventing such barbaric acts.

The court acquitted the mother entirely. Her sole error was safeguarding her “Raja-beta”, which drew condemnation but no punishment.

Describing the offense as gruesome, the judges pointed out the girl's “absolute trust” in the man, unaware of his “probable evil of a devil”. To protect other children and women, “the convict must stay inside the four walls of the prison until he is closer to the sunset of his virility”.

This sentence would shield street girls from his “pervertedness”. The court also levied a Rs 30 lakh fine on him, payable to the victim's family.

Commuting the death sentence, the bench rejected a single-focus on execution. “Commuting the death penalty to 30 years, the court said it would be right not to put all the punitive eggs in the ‘hanging’ basket but hopefully to try the ‘humane mix’."

“While deterrence through threat of death may still be a promising strategy in some frightful areas of murderous crime, to espouse a monolithic theory of its deterrent efficacy is unscientific,” it reasoned. The killing arose from “panic” to hide the rape evidence, not premeditation, so his life should not end via courts.

Incapacitation fit best: “Instead, to save the children and females, he can be incapacitated by imposing a suitable sentence that is also proportionate to the heinous and gruesome crime of raping and killing a girl aged 5½ years, whom the accused was well familiar with.”

Sentencing requires balance, like a stable table with equal legs. “The Courts, while awarding a sentence, are under an obligation to consider the (a) Crime, (b) Victim, (c) Criminal and his family, and (d) Society and the State,” the order said.