The Punjab and Haryana high court has acquitted a man awarded death sentence by a Hisar court for the alleged murder of a two-and-a-half-year-old-boy.

It was on June 16, 2018, the headless body of the child was found in agricultural fields in Gaibipur village of Hisar with severed skull, bone fragments and bloodstained clothes lying nearby. The criminal case for murder was registered at Barwala police station.

The accused, Hem Raj, who was living with a woman and her child (a migrant from Bihar), was arrested on the evening of June 20, 2018.

Allegations were that the woman’s husband left for Bihar, got married there, and did not return. The woman then started living with the accused, who allegedly used to beat her and her son. He was awarded the death sentence by the Hisar trial court on March 14, 2022.

Initially, the mother, who had testified against him, turned hostile during the trial.

The court found that, when the matter was initially reported to Childline on June 13, there was a mention of one Mahabir. “The name of Mahabir was not introduced after the factum of the child’s death had come to the notice but was recorded in the Childline register immediately after receiving the information on June 13, 2018,” the court said, adding that the identity of the offender recorded in it cannot be brushed aside. It was incumbent upon the police to have investigated about Mahabir and explained the same to do complete justice to the victim.

It said that the prosecution could not explain even as the body was found after three days, but the lower portion of the child’s body was intact and had not even been eaten by animals. However, the scalp was missing from the skull, and the upper portion of the torso, along with the arms, was also missing.

“An analysis of the entire evidence not only creates doubt about the involvement of the accused but also indicates the absence of scientific evidence against him, and has an unexplained character named ‘Mahabir’,” the court recorded.

The court observed that the prosecution has failed to present legally admissible evidence connecting the accused to the commission of any offence beyond a reasonable doubt and hence gave him benefit of doubt and acquitted him.