State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chander Sharma & Others, 2025
The court recognized the possibility of reformation, stating that there was no evidence the convicts were beyond redemption.
Judgement Details
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
26 September 2025
Judges
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
- In 2014, four-year-old Yug Gupta was abducted from outside his house in Shimla.
-
After the abduction, his parents began receiving ransom letters.
-
As per the prosecution, Chander Sharma, a neighbor, lured Yug using chocolates, took him to a rented house in a car driven by co-accused Tejinder Pal Singh.
-
It was alleged that the child was tortured, forced to consume liquor, and killed.
-
His skeletal remains were found two years later, in 2016, inside a Shimla Municipal Corporation water tank, causing public outrage.
-
In 2018, a Sessions Court convicted all three accused and awarded death penalty under Sections 302 and 364A IPC, terming it a “rarest of rare” case.
-
A death reference was made to the High Court for confirmation, and appeals were filed by the convicts.
Issues
-
Whether the death penalty awarded to the accused was justified based on the evidence on record?
-
Whether the conviction of Tejinder Pal Singh under Sections 364A and 347 IPC could be sustained beyond reasonable doubt?
-
Whether the accused could be considered beyond reform, warranting the maximum sentence?
Held
-
Chander Sharma and Vikrant Bakshi: tThe conviction upheld & Death penalty reduced to life imprisonment till natural death
-
Tejinder Pal Singh: Acquitted of all charges under Sections 364A and 347 IPC
-
The Court ruled that since the accused could be reformed, and there was insufficient evidence of brutal treatment justifying death penalty, the capital sentence could not be confirmed.
Analysis
-
The Court applied the Supreme Court’s test for awarding the death penalty from the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
-
It was emphasized that moral outrage alone is not a sufficient basis for imposing capital punishment—evidentiary standards must be met.
-
The court recognized the possibility of reformation, stating that there was no evidence the convicts were beyond redemption.
-
It reinforced the importance of procedural justice, especially in capital cases, by acquitting an accused where reasonable doubt existed.
-
It demonstrated a balanced approach, ensuring that public sentiment did not override constitutional safeguards.