Introduction:
In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chander Sharma & Others [DSR No. 1 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2018], the Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a landmark judgment on September 23, 2025, in the brutal murder of four-year-old Yug Gupta that had shaken Shimla in 2014. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla commuted the death penalty awarded to convicts Chander Sharma, aged 26, and Vikrant Bakshi, aged 22, directing that they will instead undergo imprisonment for life “till their last breath.” At the same time, the Court acquitted co-accused Tejinder Pal Singh, aged 29, of all charges, holding that the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Sections 364A and 347 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against him. The Bench noted that although the crime was grave and had evoked collective indignation, the material on record did not establish that the convicts were beyond reformation or that they had committed the offence with brutality that would justify the extreme penalty of death.
Arguments by the Prosecution:
The prosecution, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Jitender Sharma along with Deputy Advocates General J.S. Guleria and Priyanka Chauhan, argued that the crime fell within the “rarest of rare” category, warranting confirmation of the death penalty. They contended that in 2014, four-year-old Yug was lured by Chander Sharma with chocolates, taken to a rented house in the vehicle of Tejinder Pal, and held captive. The child was allegedly tortured, forced to drink liquor, and ultimately disposed of in a Shimla municipal water tank. Letters demanding ransom were received by the victim’s parents soon after his disappearance. In 2016, skeletal remains identified as those of Yug were discovered in the tank, corroborating the prosecution’s case. The State maintained that the act was gruesome, cold-blooded, and premeditated, demonstrating complete disregard for human dignity and life. The prosecution submitted that the convicts’ conduct revealed moral depravity and cruelty of such a degree that reform was impossible. Thus, the trial court had rightly sentenced them to death under Sections 302 and 364A IPC, and the High Court should confirm the reference.
Arguments by the Defence:
The defence, led by advocates Sartaj Singh Narula, Arshdeep Singh Cheema, and Prince Chauhan, countered that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain the extreme punishment of death. They argued that the prosecution had not conclusively proved that Yug was alive when thrown into the water tank, nor had it established the allegations of torture and forced intoxication beyond reasonable doubt. The defence emphasized that many circumstances were based on conjecture rather than direct evidence. They further submitted that Chander Sharma and Vikrant Bakshi were young men at the time of the crime and had no prior criminal history, making it unjust to conclude that they were beyond reformation. Regarding Tejinder Pal Singh, the defence argued that no credible evidence linked him to kidnapping for ransom or unlawful confinement. They urged the Court to set aside his conviction entirely. They also contended that the trial court’s classification of the case as “rarest of rare” was erroneous, as the evidence failed to establish the necessary degree of brutality or irredeemable character of the accused required for capital punishment.
Judgment of the High Court:
After carefully examining the records, the High Court delivered a nuanced verdict. It acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime and the widespread anguish it had caused, noting that the murder of a four-year-old child after abduction for ransom had shocked the conscience of society. However, the Bench also underscored the constitutional principles governing imposition of the death penalty, which require that such punishment be reserved only for the “rarest of rare” cases where the crime is brutal beyond measure and the convict is deemed incapable of reform. The Court observed: “The material on record does not show that the accused cannot be reformed, hence we are unable to confirm the death penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court despite our indignation towards the crime. The same is reduced to life imprisonment, which will mean the natural life of the convicts till their last breath.”
The Court specifically held that the claim that Yug had been thrown alive into the tank was not supported by evidence. It also found that while the involvement of Chander Sharma and Vikrant Bakshi in the abduction and murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the material did not justify treating them as beyond reformation. Hence, their death sentences were commuted to imprisonment for life, meaning incarceration till the end of their natural life without remission.
As regards Tejinder Pal Singh, the Bench acquitted him, ruling that the offences of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC and wrongful confinement under Section 347 IPC were not proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence failed to conclusively establish his participation in the abduction or confinement of the child. The Court therefore extended the benefit of doubt and set aside his conviction.
In its reasoning, the Bench reiterated that the judiciary must balance collective outrage against constitutional safeguards in capital punishment cases. The Court made clear that indignation towards a crime, however grave, cannot substitute the need for solid evidence and proper application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The judgment also reflected the principle that while society demands justice, the law insists upon fairness, proportionality, and adherence to due process.
The decision is significant as it highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach towards awarding the death penalty, affirming that capital punishment must be imposed sparingly and only when the convict’s conduct leaves no scope for reform. It also underscores the importance of separating societal emotions from legal evidence in criminal adjudication.