Upholding the conviction of a woman for burying her neighbour’s granddaughter alive in a pit in Ludhiana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to confirm her death sentence, holding that the crime, though gruesome, did not make capital punishment the only option and replacing it with 30 years’ rigorous imprisonment without remission.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to confirm the death sentence awarded to a woman convicted of abducting and murdering a girl aged under three in Ludhiana in November 2021, commuting it to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years without remission along with a fine of Rs 50,000, while dismissing her appeal against conviction [State of Punjab v. Neelam].
A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik decided together the murder reference sent by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for confirmation of the death sentence and the criminal appeal filed by the convict.
The sentence as modified
The trial court, by its judgment of April 12, 2024 and order on sentence of April 18, 2024, had convicted the accused under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to death for murder, subject to confirmation by the High Court. The High Court has now ordered as follows:
Under Section 302 IPC, the death sentence has been commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years without remission, with a fine of Rs 50,000 and, in default of payment, a further one year of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences imposed by the trial court under Sections 364 and 201 IPC, with fine, have been maintained. All sentences will run concurrently.
The Bench stated its conclusion in these terms:
“At the given circumstances, we are of the view that the death sentence imposed upon the accused be commuted to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 years, without remissions alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.”
Why death was not warranted
The Court relied on a line of Supreme Court rulings, including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand, Sundar v. State and Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, which require the sentencing court to look beyond the brutality of the crime to the possibility of the offender’s reformation, and which recognise a fixed-term sentence without remission as a middle path where ordinary life imprisonment would be inadequate.
Applying these principles, the Bench held:
“It cannot be held by this Court 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.”
The Court noted that she had maintained cordial relations with fellow inmates and had not been involved in any indiscipline. Reflecting on the purpose of punishment, it observed:
“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.”
Arguments on sentence
Counsel for the convict argued that this was not a rarest of rare case. The medical report showed no psychopathology, delusional tendencies or personality traits making her dangerous, and the jail report recorded satisfactory conduct, participation in vocational and educational programmes and no act of indiscipline. The sociological report described a family living in severe financial hardship, and it was argued that her inability to meet her own children’s demands may have bred resentment. Counsel for the complainant contended that burying a small child alive in sand showed a depraved mind and a total absence of empathy, but did not dispute the reports placed on record.
Conviction upheld
Before turning to sentence, the Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence. On November 28, 2021, the child was taken from the street outside her home in Shimlapuri, Ludhiana. The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession to a local resident, the testimony of a security guard who saw the accused enter a vacant plot near Eldeco City on GT Road with a child on her scooter and leave alone about ten minutes later, CCTV footage from two junctions showing the child on the scooter and the accused returning alone, and the recovery of the child’s shoes at the spot. The Court held that the chain of circumstances pointed only to the guilt of the accused, upheld the conviction under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, and dismissed her appeal.
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Neelam (MRC-3-2024) and Neelam v. State of Punjab (CRA-D-824-2024)
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Judgment: September 23, 2026
Appearance: Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG for the State of Punjab; Senior Advocate A.D.S. Sukhija as Amicus Curiae with Mehak Sawhney, Sukhdeep Singh, Manjot Kaur and Vivek Chauhan; Amandeep Singh Rai and Sunaina Rani for the convict; Atul Goyal for the complainant
If you know of a child in danger or in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.