Chandigarh, Sept. 24 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday commuted death sentence of a Ludhiana woman convicted of killing a toddler in 2021, to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without remissions. The convict, Neelam (32), was awarded death penalty by a trial court in April 2024. Neelam kidnapped the child on November 28, 2021, took her on a scooter to a secluded place and buried her alive in the Shimlapuri area of the city. Prosecution had claimed that convict had a longstanding feud with victim's family members. "..the present case, even though the offence is gruesome and displace totality, however, it may not be a case warranting capital punishment as the only punishment to be imposed. It cannot be held by this court that the accused is beyond reform and is a threat to society at large. It is evident that the accused also has children of her own and has not exhibited any disorderly or disruptive behaviour. She thus cannot be perceived to be beyond reform and incapable of co-existence in harmony," the bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and justice Ravinder Malik observed. The court took note of the fact that the convict had maintained cordial relations with all fellow inmates and has not indulged in any indiscipline of any nature whatsoever inside the jail. "We also ponder whether capital punishment is beginning of a sentence or end of it. A sentence which affords time for introspection and repent each day for the crime committed is a sentence served. The past, which serves as a reminder on every new morning, to make good for the sin committed and make efforts for some meaningful contribution. While a mother has lost her daughter, let the children of the accused not lose their mother to a point of no return. A society is not built upon denying to the children, what their mother stole but by ushering in some hope," it added. The prosecution could not establish a clear motive behind the murder, an argument vehemently asserted by her lawyers. However, the court said that this argument is not a sufficient ground to dislodge the prosecution case in view of "the overwhelming evidence against her". The family expressed their reasons as to why the accused could have nurtured her grudge against the family. "...however, the trigger motive would be available only with the accused as to why she did what she has done. Thus, while one person may believe a specific reason to exist in the mind of the other for committing an offence, there may be different reasons for the accused to commit the crime. The same would not mean that the case of the prosecution would get dislodged merely because the accused assigned a separate reason for having done the offence," it observed taking note of prosecution evidence that the woman had confided into a person about the crime, who deposed against her. A guard had seen the child with the woman around the time crime took place and also CCTV footage also caught the woman going out of the locality with the child and returning alone. The family had initially alleged that Neelam nursed the grudge as father of the child had restrained his wife from talking to Neelam. Later, prosecution had claimed that child's father worked in police and used to bring things for his children. Seeing the same, Neelam's own children raised similar demands and as she could not fulfil their demands. Hence, she took the extreme step. ". prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence produced before this court. The entire chain of events, as well as the link evidence, has been fully established," it said, while upholding the trial court order....