Nagpur: In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of Guddu Chhotelal Rajak, a 40-year-old resident of Wanjra, Kalamna, to life imprisonment, overturning the sessions court’s order in a gruesome case involving the murder of his 16-year-old daughter in 2022.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilore and Justice Praveen Patil observed that while the crime was “deeply reprehensible,” it did not fall within the judicially defined category of “rarest of rare” cases that merit capital punishment.
Gold Rate
12 Oct 2025
Rajak was convicted of strangling his teenage daughter after she threatened to expose his alleged sexual abuse. The horrific act occurred on November 6, 2022, when, motivated by greed for his second wife’s property, he killed his daughter and staged her death as a suicide.
According to the prosecution, Rajak fabricated a suicide note, falsely implicating his wife and brother-in-law to mislead police. The bench, while condemning the act, held that the death penalty was excessive, noting, “The act of killing one’s own daughter is abhorrent and inhuman. However, it does not meet the threshold of ‘rarest of rare’ as laid down by the Supreme Court. A life term would adequately serve the ends of justice.”
The court further set aside his conviction under the sexual assault charge, citing insufficient evidence, but upheld his conviction for murder and related offences, imposing a total fine of Rs 1.08 lakh.
The judgment also records chilling details of premeditation. A month before the murder, Rajak allegedly attempted to poison his daughter under the guise of giving her medicine after she fell ill due to repeated abuse. The girl had confided in her aunt, expressing fear for her life. On the fateful night, Rajak forced his younger daughter to photograph the staged hanging, before tightening the rope himself until the victim died.
The court concluded that while the crime was heinous and morally indefensible, it lacked the exceptional brutality or public impact necessary to justify the ultimate punishment. The bench underscored that “punishment must correspond to the nature and gravity of the crime, not merely to the public outcry it generates.”
