Punjab and Haryana High Court confirms death penalty for child’s gruesome murder: Hair evidence seals conviction
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 6
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the death sentence of Sukhjinder Singh, alias Sukha, for the brutal murder of a seven-year-old, with forensic evidence—hair strands discovered in the victim’s clenched fist—playing a crucial role in the conviction.
The matter was placed before the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma after ‘murder reference’ was made by Ferozepur Additional District and Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence. An appeal was also filed by convict against the judgment and order dated December 11, 2013.
The trial court’s decision was heavily influenced by the forensic evidence. Hair recovered from the deceased’s right fist was compared with hair samples from the convict, revealing a match. The forensic science laboratory’s report confirmed the exhibits (hair) were human scalp hair and showed similar characteristics.
The defence, during the court proceedings, argued that the death sentence should be reconsidered, asserting that the case did not fall within the “rarest of the rare” category warranting capital punishment. The defence suggested that life imprisonment would be more appropriate. But the Bench rejected the plea, stating that the arguments did not persuade the judicial conscience.
The Bench upheld the trial judge’s assessment, which noted the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. The Bench noted that the trial judge, among other things, had observed that it was not a case of simple murder. The boy, in addition to his one sister, was the only son of his parents. The incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town and the adjacent areas. The accused-convict was successful in getting the ransom from the father. Even then he killed the minor boy.
The high court concurred with the assessment, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the impact on the community. Describing the case as “the gruesome murder of a child,” the Bench condemned the convict’s actions as “dehumanized, besides monster-like conduct” and confirmed the death sentence. The District Magistrate was directed to arrange for the execution, following the mandatory appeal period
