State of Haryana v. Virender @ Bholu, 2026
It set precedent for careful, balanced approach to sentencing in heinous crimes, rather than automatic imposition of death.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
3 January 2026
Judges
Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
On May 31, 2018, Virender, who worked with the victim’s father, took Laado (5.5 years old) along while bringing lunch.
-
When the child did not return home, villagers searched for her. CCTV footage showed Virender leading her to his house.
-
Villagers later discovered the child’s body concealed in a drum at Virender’s house. She had been raped and murdered.
-
Virender’s mother, Kamla Devi, allegedly resisted entry and switched off electricity, but did not participate in the crime.
-
Both Virender and Kamla Devi were tried
-
Trial Court: Death penalty for Virender; Kamla Devi convicted under Sections 201, 120-B IPC.
-
-
Virender appealed, claiming No criminal antecedents and good conduct in prison suggests possibility of reformation.
-
Psychological evaluation found no significant mental health issues.
-
Court noted: Murder occurred in panic to destroy evidence of rape, not premeditated.
Issues
-
Whether the death penalty is warranted for the rape and murder of a minor, or can a proportionate life sentence suffice?
-
Whether Kamla Devi’s actions amounted to criminal conspiracy or causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC?
-
Whether mitigating factors, such as absence of criminal antecedents and good prison conduct, can influence sentencing in heinous crimes?
Held
-
Virender’s guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Death penalty not imposed, as:
-
Murder occurred in panic.
-
Convict has potential for reformation.
-
Alternative of long-term life imprisonment ensures societal safety.
-
-
Kamla Devi not criminally liable; acquitted of all charges.
-
Sentence designed to protect other children and balance justice with proportionality.
Analysis
-
Court applied principles of proportionality, considering:
-
Age and vulnerability of victim
-
Severity of crime
-
Criminal antecedents and potential for reform
-
Social impact and deterrence
-
-
Emphasized two views theory: Death penalty vs. life imprisonment; preferred life imprisonment when feasible.
-
Mitigating factors such as good prison conduct and absence of mental illness considered.
-
Set precedent for careful, balanced approach to sentencing in heinous crimes, rather than automatic imposition of death.
-
Reinforced that mere presence or complicity without intent is insufficient for conviction (Kamla Devi).