Madhya Pradesh High Court
In Referance vs Neelesh Prajapati on 27 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17174
JBP:17174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL REFERENCE No.07 of 2025
IN REFERENCE
Versus
NEELESH PRAJAPATI
APPEARANCE
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Anannya Shree
Adhikari, Amicus Curiae
Curiae.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar,
Tamrakar Government Advocate for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10001 of 2025
ACCUSED-A
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
APPEARANCE
Shri Ashok Lalwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aakash Lalwani
Lalwani,
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar,
Tamrakar, Government Advocate for the State.
Date of hearing : 28.1.2026
Date of judgment : 27.2.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
2
JUDGEMENT
As Per : Justice Vivek Agarwal
Both these Criminal Reference No.7 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.10001 of
2025 originate from the judgment dated 23.8.2025 passed by learned Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Sagar in Special Case No.43/2024 whereby the accused Neelesh
Prajapati has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in lieu
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
of fine
Protection of
Children from
5(m) Sexual Death Penalty Rs.500/- R.I. for two months.
Offences Act,
2012
Protection of
Children from
5(n) Sexual Death Penalty Rs.500/- R.I. for two months.
Offences Act,
2012
Indian Penal
366 R.I. for 7 years Rs.500/- R.I. for two months.
Code, 1860
Indian Penal
302 Death Penalty Rs.500/- R.I. for two months.
Code, 1860
2. Brief facts leading to the present death reference and criminal appeal are that
on the night of 8-9/04/2024, the complainant/informant, who is the father of the
victim, had slept on the terrace of his house along with his wife and three daughters at
about 11:00 PM. His wife was pregnant and, therefore, was not in a position to attend
the call of nature on her own. She woke him up to escort her for the same. Upon
returning, his wife informed him that their four-year-old daughter was not on the bed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
3
Thereafter, he informed the villagers about the incident. The villagers, along with the
family members, searched for the missing girl during the night itself. Intimation was
also given to the police, who lodged Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/1) and registered
Crime No.0/24 for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. A Dehati Guminsaan
Report was also lodged vide Exhibit P/2. On 10.04.2024 at about 11:10 AM, the dead
body of the victim was found near a Well on the medh of Dwarka, and the accused
was apprehended thereafter. A Dastyabi Panchnama was accordingly prepared.
3. On spot, Merg No.0/24 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C was registered and the
actual Merg No.19/2024 was also registered at Police Station. Shav Panchnama and
Nazri Naksha etc were prepared. The dead body of the victim was sent to B.M.C,
Sagar for postmortem. As per postmortem report, it was found that the victim was
subjected to rape and then put to death through smothering/strangulation. The doctor
had prepared the vaginal slides, swab, nail sketching, clothes worn by her and had
prepared the seizure memo. The police had seized the sample as well as the blood
soaked soil from spot and prepared the seizure memo and thereafter a draft was sent
through the Superintendent of Police, Sagar to the State Forensic Science Laboratory,
Sagar for reporting.
4. During the search for unknown accused persons, blood samples of the father,
grandfather, uncle, and the accused were collected after duly filling in the
identification forms and ensuring proper preservation. The samples were sent for
DNA examination on 16.04.2024. The DNA report was thereafter received, and as per
the report, the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused, Neelesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
4
Prajapati, matched with the DNA profile obtained from the sample of the victim. The
DNA report dated 24.4.2024 is available on record as Exhibit P/42 in which it is
mentioned that the vaginal slide and swab (Exhibit-A) obtained from the victim
revealed mixed DNA profile (Y-STR), which is also available in the blood sample
(Exhibit-O) of suspect Neelesh Prajapati as can be seen from Y-STR DNA profile
obtained from his blood sample. The aforesaid report reveals that left hand nail
cutting of the victim (Exhibit-B) so also black coloured T-shirt (Stain-2) (Exhibit-C)
revealed similar Y-STR DNA profile as was obtained from the blood sample (Exhibit-
O) of suspect Neelesh Prajapati. The report also states that the DNA profile obtained
from the vaginal slide and swab (Exhibit-A) from the victim so also from her black
coloured T-shirt (Stain-2) (Exhibit-C) does not match with the blood sample of the
suspects, namely, Siyaram Prajapati (Exhibit-I), Rammilan Prajapati (Exhibit-J),
Jitendra Raikwar (Exhibit-K), Godan Prajapati (Exhibit-L), Premkumar Prajapati
(Exhibit-M) and Gotiram Prajapati (Exhibit-N).
5. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the present case is one of blind rape-cum-
murder as there was no eye-witness, who had seen the victim either in the company
of the accused being abducted by him and/or her privacy being violated at the hands
of the accused and/or the victim being smothered to death. However, upon recovery
of the dead body of the victim and after blood samples of various suspected persons
were drawn, the scientific evidence revealed that the vaginal slide, swab and the
black-coloured T-shirt of the victim disclosed the same Y-STR DNA profile as was
obtained from the blood sample of the accused Neelesh Prajapati.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
5
6. Thus, it is evident and submitted that the present case rests on circumstantial
evidence. The DNA evidence alone is not a complete and comprehensive piece of
evidence so as to record a finding of conviction. The social audit report of Neelesh
Prajapati as submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station Jaisinagar,
District Sagar on 20.01.2026 reveals that Neelesh Prajapati is an alcoholic and that
the conduct of his parents is cordial and social. They have no enmity or lack of
cordiality with any person in the village. Present is a case where this Hon’ble High
Court should show indulgence and, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, taking into
consideration that the age of the accused Neelesh Prajapati is only 28 years.
7. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior Advocate, submits that there are no past
criminal antecedents against the accused. There is no evidence to show that the
accused is a habitual offender or a hardcore criminal. No injury was caused by use of
any weapon, thereby indicating that the accused did not possess a mindset of extreme
depravity. There is also no evidence to suggest that, at the time of the incident, the
accused was drunk, abusive, or violent. The dead body of the victim was found in an
open field and, since no weapon was used, present is a fit case for commutation of the
death penalty to life imprisonment. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Ramesh A. Naika versus The Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka & Others 2025 SCC Online SC 575.
8. Learned Government Advocate for the State, in his turn, supports the impugned
judgment and submits that the girl in question, who became the victim of the dark
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
6
desires of the accused, was less than five years old, which is such that no human
being could have felt any arousal or compulsive inclination to commit such a
gruesome act. He submits that recently this Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Appeal
No.3732/2025 & Criminal Reference Capital No.2/2025 [Atul Nihale versus State
of Madhya Pradesh] decided on 22.1.2026 has maintained the capital punishment
of the accused. Hence, a prayer is made not to show any indulgence in the matter.
9. We have gone through the judgment of Atul Nihale versus State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra) and certain facts need to be correlated, namely, there is no eye-
witness account and secondly, the plea of the accused is that he has been falsely
implicated. His statement is that he had an enmity with Siyaram Prajapati. There was
an altercation with the police. The police had arrested him under Section 151 of the
Cr.P.C in this very matter and then the police in connivance with Siyaram Prajapati
falsely implicated him. However, the aforesaid defence may have some credibility but
the scientific evidence cannot be discarded on account of such submissions. The
postmortem report (Exhibit P/13), proved by Dr. Sudeep Kumar Sahu (PW.5), reveals
that there were multiple ant-bite marks on the body. There was a semi-circular, red-
coloured contusion on the vaginal orifice. The hymen was ruptured, but the uterus
and adnexa were normal in size. The doctor opined that the cause of death was
asphyxia, which could have been due to smothering or strangulation.
10. Dr.Sudeep Kumar Sahu (PW.5) in his cross-examination admits that the
injuries, which were found on the body of the victim, could have been attributed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
7
she being dragged in thorny bushes and some of the injuries were on account of the
ant bite. The ants were found inside the body of the deceased also.
11. The father of the victim (PW.1) admits that the accused was known to him. He
was visiting their house. He was residing in the same village at some distance. He
was alcoholic. He used to have altercations with his family members. 2-3 days prior
to the date of the incident, the accused had visited their house. He had woken them up
and then for the whole day he stayed there with them. At the time of lodging of the
Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/1) and the Missing Person Report (Exhibit P/2), the name
of Neelesh Prajapati was not taken. This witness admits that the blood samples of
various persons were taken simultaneously at the hospital when the police collected
them together.
12. The mother of the victim (PW.2) states that she has three daughters and the
victim was the youngest. The victim was born on 06.11.2019 at the Community
Health Center, Jaisinagar. The incident took place on 08.04.2024. This witness admits
that, at an earlier point in time while giving her case diary statement, she had never
stated that the accused had inappropriately touched her daughter and that she was
mentioning this fact for the first time. She further admits that on the day the dead
body was recovered, she was not in her village but had gone to her parental home.
She also admits that on the day the victim went missing, she had gone to her Maika.
She admits that the accused used to visit their house. She had not seen anyone taking
the victim, nor had she heard any cries of the victim. She admits that the accused
resided at a distance of one and a half kilometres in the same village and that he is an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
8
alcoholic. She also admits that she had an altercation with her husband in the past.
Like the father of the victim (PW.1), the mother of the victim (PW.2) admits that once
the accused had an altercation with police personnel, the blood samples of all persons
were taken, and thereafter the police had taken the accused to the police station. She
admits that the dead body of the victim was recovered from the Medh of the field of
Neelesh Prajapati.
13. Jagdish (PW.3) states that Neelesh Prajapati is known to him. He drives the
Tractor of his uncle. The complainant and their family members are also known to
him. On the morning of 10th April, this witness, along with Neelesh Prajapati and his
cousin, had gone to the field of Neelesh Prajapati’s uncle to dump fertilizer. Neelesh
Prajapati informed him that a dead body was lying at a distance of 150 meters and
asked him to inform the villagers about the incident. This witness was declared
hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
14. The grandfather of the victim (PW.4) states that Neelesh Prajapati is known to
him and that he is his grandson. This witness admits that, after two days, Neelesh
Prajapati and his uncle’s son, Sewak, informed him that the dead body of a girl was
lying in the field of Neelesh Prajapati. He admits that 10-15 people were taken by the
police to the hospital, where blood samples of all 14-15 persons were drawn. He
further admits that the signatures of none of the persons, whose blood samples were
drawn, were obtained on any of the vials. He admits that on Exhibit P/12, thumb
impressions were obtained at the police station and that the thumb impressions of all
persons were taken there. He admits that on the next day, when the victim had gone
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
9
missing, her mother had gone to her Maika. This witness also admits that when the
police came to their village, the accused was present in the village. At that time,
Neelesh Prajapati was drunk. An altercation took place between the police and
Neelesh Prajapati and the police arrested him on account of this altercation.
15. Dr. L.S.Shakya (PW.6) states that he had provided the details of the birth of the
victim from the Community Health Center, Jaisinagar, on 24.07.2023.
16. Head Constable Satish Shrivastava (PW.7) states that he had taken six persons
to the hospital, and their blood samples were collected and preserved. These persons
were brought to the Police Station-Jaisinagar, where the samples were sealed vide
Exhibit P/17 in the presence of Constables Jitendra Rajak and Sandeep Solanki.
17. Shashank Rajput (PW-8) states that he had collected the vaginal slides and
other related materials from the Community Health Center, which were seized vide
Exhibit P/16.
18. Quazi Syed Uddin (PW.9) states that he had taken Neelesh Prajapati on
16.4.2024 for medical examination and his blood samples were preserved for DNA
examination vide Exhibit P/18.
19. When all these facts are taken into consideration, it is evident that the
distinctive feature between the case of Atul Nihale versus State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra) and the present case of Neelesh Prajapati is as follows: In Atul
Nihale versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), there were five criminal cases
pending against the accused. He was a habitual offender and a hardcore criminal. He
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
10
had caused injuries to the private parts of the victim with a kitchen knife, reflecting
mental depravity. The injuries inflicted on the victim were barbarous in nature,
particularly in the pelvic region. The body was concealed in a tank in a flat owned by
the accused’s mother to hide evidence. Therefore, considering the extreme brutality
and the use of a weapon, that case was held to be a rarest-of-rare case. In the present
case, none of such rarest-of-rare circumstances are present.
20. When the facts and circumstances of the present case are tested on the
touchstone of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh A. Naika versus The
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Others (supra) then it is evident
that there were multiple murders in that case, including that of a three-and-a-half-
year-old girl, committed on account of jealousy. The Apex Court, after noting that the
appellant had no prior criminal antecedents and maintained good relations with the
deceased, and also taking into account that all mitigating circumstances were not
considered by the learned Trial Court, observed that a restrictive worldview on the
part of the appellant/convict had become the reason for a senseless act of violence
and depravity. The Apex Court noted that, although it did not approve of the
appellant’s acts, the accused should be understood in the context of the barbarity of
the crime, including his own dimension, as well as the helplessness of two children
who met the most unfortunate of ends. The Apex Court, therefore, directed that the
death sentence of the appellant/convict be commuted, removing the hangman’s
noose, and instead ordered that he remains in prison till the ends of his days given by
the God Almighty.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
11
21. Looking at the nature of the evidence and the facts that have come on record,
we are also persuaded that, although the present case is based on circumstantial
evidence and is said to be of unimpeachable character, the option of imposing a lesser
sentence cannot be said to be foreclosed.
22. The Apex Court in Deen Dayal Tiwari versus State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online
SC 237 considered multiple factors including the absence of criminal antecedents as
a ground to commute the sentence of the accused and drew a table, which is given
below:-
Part-I
WHEREIN DEATH PENALTY WAS COMMUTED TO LIFE SENTENCE
WITHOUT REMISSION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CONVICT’S
LIFES.No Case details JJ. Brief Facts Reasons for commuting
Sentence
1. Swamy 3 Appellant killed wife • The manner of committing
Shraddana v. who was the murder did not cause any
State of granddaughter of a mental or physical pain to the
Karnataka Dewan. Subsequently, victim.
(2008)13 SCC he sold off her
767 properties and was • Appellant confessed his guilt
absconding. before the High Court. @54
2. Sebastian v. 2 Appellant kidnapped a • Appellant was 24 years old at
State of Kerala 2- years-old girl from the time of the incident.
(2010) 1 SCC her house, committed
58 rape on her and then
murdered her.
3. B. Kumar v. 3 Appellant worked as a • Appellant's motive was not to
Inspector of mason in the house of commit murder but to commit
Police the victims. He rape on the prosecutrix. @18
(2015) 2 SCC committed rape on a
346 woman, murdered a • No possibility of him having
boy whom he had tied; committed any another offence
being an eyewitness to since he was apprehended 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
12
the act of rape, and years after the incident. @21
further injured an
eyewitness to the
murder.
4. 'X' v. State of 3 Appellant murdered •Appellant suffering from
Maharashtra two minor girls after severe mental illness since
(2019) 7 SCC 1 committing rape on 1994, i.e., post conviction,
them. The deceased during his long incarceration as
victims were the a death row convict, i.e. 17
Appellant's neighbour. years. @74
5. Sudam v. State 3 Petitioner murdered his •Nature of circumstantial
of Maharashtra wife, his two children evidence is a mitigating factor
(2019) 9 SCC and the two children in the instant case. @21
388 from his wife's
extramarital affair. • No medical evidence to show
that Petitioner had crushed the
face of deceased to avoid
identification. @16
6. Ravishankar v. 3 Appellant kidnapped a •Key witness made
State of M.P. 13 year old girl. contradictory statement.
(2019) 9 SCC Thereafter, he
689 committed rape on her
and murdered her by
throttling.Subsequently,
he destroyed evidence
by throwing her half-
naked body in a dry
well.
7. Vijay Kumar v. 3 Appellant murdered 3 • No criminal antecedents.
State of J&K minor children and
(2019) 12 SCC caused injury to the •Not a professional killer. @12
791 remaining minor child
and their father.
8. Rajendra 3 Appellant committed • Prosecution failed to produce
Pralhadrao rape and murder of a 3 available DNA evidence and
Wasnik v. State year old girl. other material evidence before
of Maharashtra the Trial Court. @57
(2019) 12 SCC
460 • Possibility of reformation and
rehabilitation not considered
by lower courts. @79
9. Mohd. Mannan 3 Petitioner-accused was • Legal aid provided to him
v. State of a mason working at the was inadequate. @ 38
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
13
Bihar house of an 8-yearold
(2019) 16 SCC girl. He kidnapped, • No opportunity given to the
584 raped and murdered the Petitioner to illustrate
child. mitigating factors. @ 39
Case is based on • No evidence showing murder
circumstantial evidence was premeditated. @47
and alleged
extrajudicial confession • No DNA analysis of the
made by the Petitioner. sperm found on the victim’s
@57 body conducted by the
prosecution. @53• Psychiatrist report shows
possibility of neurological
and/or mental health issues.
@68
• Post conviction mental health
of the Petitioner a relevant
consideration. @84
10. Dattatraya v. 3 Appellant is a 50 year • No evidence to show that
State of old man who Appellant took victim to his
Maharashtra committed rape on a 5 residence. @114
(2020) 14 SCC year old girl which
290 resulted in her death. • No evidence to show that
murder was intended or
premeditated. Appellant did
not carry any weapon. •
Possibility of the Appellant
being unaware that sexual
assault would result in death
cannot be ruled out. @123
• Legal assistance to the
Appellant ineffective. @129
• Question of reform not
considered by the Trial Court.
@130
11. Jagdish v. State 3 Petitioner murdered his • Petitioner in custody since 14
of M.P. wife and five children. years.
(2020) 14 SCC
156 • Unexplained delay of 4 years
in forwarding the mercy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
14
petition by State. @12
12. Rabbu v. State 3 Appellant committed • Appellant brought up by
of M.P. rape on a minor girl single father, comes from a
2024 SCC and set her on fire, backward socioeconomic
Online SC 2933 thereby killing her. stratum of society, was 22-
yearold at the time of incident,
has no criminal antecedents
and possibility of reform
cannot be ruled out. @15-16
13. Deen Dayal 3 Appellant murdered his • Absence of previous criminal
Tiwari v. State wife and four minor antecedents.
of U.P. daughters with an axe.
2025 SCC •Appellant's behavior in
Online SC 237 custody has been "satisfactory"
and "normal," noting that he
has been performing assigned
duties without any adverse
conduct.
• Nothing on record suggests
that the appellant is incapable
of rehabilitation. @20
PART - II
CASES WHEREIN LIFE SENTENCE HAS BEEN IMPOSED TILL THE END
OF THE CONVICT’S NATURAL LIFE SUBJECT TO REMISSION
S.No Case details JJ. Brief Facts Reasons for
commuting Sentence
1. Mulla v. State of U.P. 2 Appellants abducted • One of the Appellants
(2010) 3 SCC 508 and murdered five is 65- years-old and in
persons. custody since 14 years.
@79
• Appellants belong to
an extremely poor
background.
•Possibility of
reformation not ruled
out. @81
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
15
2. Rameshbhai 3 Appellant murdered •Appellant was 27-
Chandubhai Rathod (2) and committed rape years-old at the time of
v. State of Gujarat on a minor girl who the incident.
(2011) 2 SCC 764 belonged to the
apartment of which •Possibility of
he was a watchman. reformation not ruled
out.
• Appellant not granted
adequate opportunity
to plead on the
question of sentence.
@7
3. Sandesh v. State of 2 Appellant committed •Appellant was 23-
Maharashtra robbery during which years-old at the time of
(2013) 2 SCC 479 he fatally injured a incident.
pregnant woman and
her mother-in-law. •Murder not
Subsequently, he premeditated.
murdered another
relative of the victims •Appellant not a
during the hardened criminal.
commission of the
robbery. • Good conduct in jail.
4. Mohinder Singh v. State 2 Appellant murdered •Appellant did not
of Punjab his wife and daughter harm his other
(2013) 3 SCC 294 because of a previous daughter while
case filed by his wife committing the crime.
against the Appellant
for committing rape •Appellant is a poor
on his minor man unable to sustain
daughter. himself.
•Probability of
reformation not
foreclosed. @28
5. Deepak Rai v. State of 3 3 accused committed •Death sentence
Bihar murder of informant's commuted only in
(2013) 10 SCC 421 wife and five respect of A-3, i.e.,
children. Bacha Babu Rai.
•No overt act
attributed to A3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
16
6. Vyas Ram v. State of 2 Appellants killed 35 •Only 1 witness has
Bihar persons and injured 7 attributed the role of
(2013) 12 SCC 349 belonging to a slitting throats to the
particular community. Appellant.
•Incident took place in
1992 - charges framed
in 2004.
7. Sunil Damodar Gaikwad 2 Appellant murdered •Appellant suffered
v. State of Maharashtra his wife and two from economic and
(2014) 1 SCC 129 sons. He attempted to psychic compulsions.
murder his daughter
but she survived. •Possibility of
reformation cannot be
ruled out.
•No criminal
antecedents.
•Appellant was living
in abject poverty.
8. Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde 3 Appellants murdered •Appellants were 23-
v. State of Maharashtra two minors and seven 29- years-old at the
(2014) 4 SCC 292 persons after which time of incident.
the Appellants robbed
them. •Appellants lived in
acute poverty.
•Appellants have
pursued further
education and
meaningful
endeavours during
custody. @38
9. Sushil Sharma v. State 3 Appellant murdered •No criminal
(NCT of Delhi) his wife with a antecedents.
(2014) 4 SCC 317 firearm and burnt the
body in a tandoor. • No evidence to show
absence of possibility
of reformation.
• Appellant has spent
10 years in death cell.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
17
• Appellant is the only
son of his parents who
are old and infirm.
@105
10. Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir 2 The incident pertains •The acts committed
v. State of West Bengal to attack on police were not directed
(2014) 7 SCC 443 personnel wherein 5 against the sovereignty
police officials were of the State. Hence, it
killed and 13 others could not be equated
were injured along with precedents such
with other civilians. as Navjot Sandhu,
Ajmal Kasab or Mohd.
Death penalty of Arif.
accused Aftab
commuted to life •Aftab was the
imprisonment till the mastermind behind the
end of his life. entire operation – did
not commit the act
himself. He made the
other accused commit
the murders through.
11. Arvind Singh v. State of 3 Appellant kidnapped •Appellants were 19-
Maharashtra an 8- years-old boy to yearsold at the time of
(2021) 11 SCC 1 demand ransom. the incident.
Subsequently, he
murdered the boy. •No criminal
antecedents. A-1
surrendered at the first
opportunity. @98
23. On going through the record and the legal position summarized above, it is
evident that present is a case of mental depravity and is shocking to the conscience,
but when mitigating circumstances are examined vis-à-vis aggravating circumstances,
except for mental depravity, no other reason appears to be brought out to show that
there was any enmity or provocation to perform the acts as were done by the
appellant. In cases of mental depravity, reformation is possible and, in our opinion,
wherever there is scope for reformation, life should not be taken away, but an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16
18
opportunity should be given to reform and regret with remorse, that is more
appropriate than to take away the life.
24. Keeping in mind the above pronouncement of law, the social audit report of
Neelesh Prajapati filed by the Station House Officer of Police Station Jaisinagar,
District Sagar, on 20.01.2026 and the nature of the evidence on record, we are of the
opinion that the death sentence of the accused Neelesh Prajapati should be commuted
to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and accordingly it is so
ordered.
25. With the above modification, the Criminal Reference No.07 of 2025 is
answered and Criminal Appeal No.10001 of 2025 is partially allowed.
26. The case property be disposed of as per the order of the Trial Court.
27. Let record of learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(Vivek Agarwal) (Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen)
Judge Judge
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 27-02-
2026 16:54:16