A gruesome case of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Panipat, which had ended in death sentences for two men, has now taken an unexpected turn. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence, and sent the entire matter back to the trial court - not because it found the men innocent, but because the trial itself was riddled with procedural gaps that could not be ignored.
The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri was hearing a murder reference along with two separate appeals filed by convicts Pardeep and Sagar alias Kallu, who had been sentenced to death by a Sessions Court in February 2022.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the girl - referred to by the Court with affection as "Laadli" - went missing from her village Urlana Kalan in Panipat on the evening of January 13, 2018, after stepping out to throw garbage. Her body was found the next morning, unclothed, near the village Chaupal.
Her uncle lodged a complaint, and investigators soon zeroed in on Pardeep and Sagar. A home guard, who was a neighbour of the accused, told police that both men had confessed to him and asked to be handed over to the police. Based on their disclosure statements, police recovered a tasla (iron pan), the victim's slippers, semi-burnt clothes, and other items.
The post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation. Forensic reports later found human semen on vaginal swabs, slides, a mattress piece, and undergarments. The trial court convicted both men on charges including murder, gang rape, kidnapping, and offences under the POCSO Act, and awarded them the death penalty in February 2022.
What Went Wrong in the Trial
While reviewing the record, the High Court noticed something the trial court had missed entirely. The doctors who conducted the post-mortem had clearly stated that their final opinion on sexual assault would depend on the FSL report. That report came in and confirmed presence of semen — but it was never sent back to the doctors for their opinion.
The bench did not mince words about this lapse. The judgment observed that it was "grossly negligent on the part of the Investigating Officer and the Supervisory Officers" not to have forwarded the FSL report to the doctors for their final word.
A second, more serious problem surfaced in how the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC (now Section 351 of the BNSS) - the stage where an accused gets a chance to explain the evidence against him. The Court found that key incriminating facts, such as the identification of the recovered tasla and slippers as belonging to the victim, were never properly put to either accused. One question even wrongly attributed the extra-judicial confession to the wrong witness.
The Court observed,
"the omission and irregularity can only be rectified by remanding the matter to the trial Court" so that the doctors can be examined properly and the accused can be questioned again on every incriminating circumstance.
The Court's Reasoning
Justice Chitkara, writing for the bench, referred extensively to a long line of Supreme Court rulings - from Tara Singh (1951) to recent 2025 judgments - all holding that an accused cannot be convicted on the strength of evidence never explained to him. At the same time, the Court was careful to note that such lapses are irregularities, not illegalities, and can be cured without a full retrial.
The bench also weighed the interest of the victim's family against the accused's right to a fair trial, observing that acquitting the men merely because of this procedural defect "would cause more serious prejudice to the victim, without her being at any fault at all."
The Decision
The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court. It directed that the trial resume from the stage of summoning the doctors as court witnesses to record their opinion on sexual assault, followed by a fresh examination of both accused under Section 351 BNSS on every incriminating circumstance, with an opportunity to lead defence evidence thereafter.
The murder reference and both criminal appeals were disposed of on these terms, with the High Court asking the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously given that the case has been pending since 2018.
-300x169.webp)