Rajasthan High Court commutes death sentence in Pali POCSO-murder case, holds not ‘rarest of rare’

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a 22-year-old man for the abduction, rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl in Pichawa village of Pali district to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, holding that the prosecution had failed to place any material establishing that the accused was beyond the possibility of reformation, and that the case did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” threshold warranting confirmation of capital punishment.

A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma answered the death reference in the negative and partly allowed the connected criminal appeal, observing that while the brutality of the crime undoubtedly satisfied the “crime test”, the prosecution had led no material on the personality, behavioural profile or possibility of reformation of the accused-appellant, and the balancing exercise required under Machhi Singh v State of Punjab and Lehna v State of Haryana did not permit the Court to conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment was “unquestionably foreclosed”.

Thre Court held:

“The brutality of the crime, by itself, cannot be the sole determinative factor for imposing the extreme penalty of death. Equally important is the assessment of the offender and the possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation… The burden lies upon the prosecution to place before the Court sufficient material enabling it to undertake a meaningful balancing exercise between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the absence of such material, the Court would be slow in concluding that the case falls within the exceptional category warranting the irreversible punishment of death.”

The matter arose out of Death Reference No. 3/2022 submitted by the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act No. 3, Pali, under Section 366 CrPC seeking confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to accused-appellant Narpat Singh @ Napsa by judgment dated Oct 15, 2022, together with the accused’s own D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 185/2022 under Section 374(2) CrPC and a connected appeal preferred by the complainant. The trial court had convicted Narpat Singh under Sections 302, 366 and 201 IPC and Sections 5(j)(iv) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, awarding the death penalty for the offence of murder and imprisonment for life till natural death for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

According to the prosecution, on Jan 24, 2022, the accused-appellant lured the victim — a 10-year-old girl studying in Class IV at the Government School, Pichawa — and two other children to his agricultural field on the pretext of offering them berries. After sending the other two children back, he retained the victim, sexually assaulted her, murdered her and threw the body into a well with a view to causing disappearance of evidence. FIR No. 12/2022 came to be registered at Police Station Thakatgarh, District Pali, on the report of the victim’s grandfather, complainant Varda Ram, and after investigation the accused was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 364, 376, 376AB, 302 and 201 IPC read with Sections 4, 5(j)(iv) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act. A separate charge-sheet for the offence under Section 225 IPC was filed against the accused’s father, Manohar Singh.

Counsel for the accused-appellant, Nishant Bora, assailed the prosecution case at the threshold, questioning the genuineness of the FIR, the recovery memos and the collection of biological samples, and pointing to the delay in registration of the report. It was contended that the accused had been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant party on account of village disputes and that the investigation had been conducted under public pressure. Additional Advocate General Deepak Choudhary appeared for the State, and Senior Advocate J.S. Choudhary with Pradeep Choudhary represented the complainant.

Rejecting the challenge to the conviction, the bench affirmed the findings of the trial court on the basis of the ocular, medical and forensic evidence brought on record, including the last-seen circumstance, the recovery of the body and the DNA and FSL reports linking the accused to the offence. Turning to the question of sentence, the Court drew on the parameters formulated in Machhi Singh, reiterated in Lehna, and the sentencing framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, which requires the trial court to call for a mitigation report before imposing the death sentence.

Pursuant to directions issued by the Court, a mitigation report dated Apr 14, 2026 was submitted by the Station House Officer, Thakatgarh, along with a Nominal Roll issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. The report revealed that the accused-appellant was about 22 years of age at the time of the incident, had studied up to the 10th Standard, belonged to a modest middle-class agricultural family, had only one previous FIR against him, disclosed no history of mental illness or psychiatric disorder, and had undergone continuous judicial custody of four years, six months and eighteen days with satisfactory conduct in prison.

Weighing these mitigating circumstances against the aggravating features, the bench observed:

“The youthfulness of the accused-appellant at the time of the incident, the absence of any significant criminal antecedents, his satisfactory conduct in jail and, above all, the absence of evidence indicating that he is beyond the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, constitute mitigating circumstances which cannot be ignored while considering the question of sentence… The brutality and heinous nature of the offence undoubtedly satisfy the crime test; however, the prosecution has failed to place adequate material to satisfy the criminal test, namely, that the accused-appellant is beyond the possibility of reform and rehabilitation.”

Consequently, while affirming the conviction, the Court on Jul 27, 2026 answered the Death Reference in the negative and commuted the sentence of death awarded to Narpat Singh @ Napsa under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, subject to payment of the fine imposed by the trial court. The sentences awarded for the remaining offences, including imprisonment for life till natural death under the POCSO Act, were left undisturbed. The connected criminal appeal preferred by the complainant was dismissed as not pressed.

Title: State of Rajasthan v Narpat Singh @ Napsa

Case No.: D.B. Murder Reference No. 3/2022 with D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 185/2022 and D.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2120/2022

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:33448-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG for the State; Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the complainant

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Nishant Bora with Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, Mr. Naman Bhansali and Mr. Meetaksh Dadhich for the accused