Published On: February 25th 2026
Authored By: Tasneem Nafiss
Capital Law College Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Introduction
Traditional criminal law mechanisms are largely reactive, activating only after the commission of an offence and focusing primarily on establishing culpability and imposing punishment. While such an approach is central to criminal jurisprudence, it often proves inadequate in addressing crimes that evolve through repeated acts over time. Serial offences against children, in particular, tend to persist within environments marked by institutional fragmentation, delayed recognition of patterns, and weak coordination among law enforcement and child welfare authorities. These systemic deficiencies allow extreme criminal behavior to remain undetected until irreversible harm has occurred.
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reflects India’s attempt to modernize its criminal justice framework by strengthening substantive definitions, procedural safeguards, and evidentiary standards. However, the effectiveness of these reforms in responding to exceptional crimes such as serial child murder remains uncertain. While the revised statutes enhance post-offence accountability, questions persist regarding their capacity to facilitate early detection, preventive intervention, and institutional responsiveness in cases involving repeated victimization of children.
In this context, comparative legal analysis assumes particular significance. Examining extreme cases from other jurisdictions enables a critical assessment of how prolonged institutional failures can allow serial crimes against children to continue unchecked. Such comparative engagement does not serve the purpose of attributing fault to a particular legal system; rather, it functions as a methodological tool to identify structural vulnerabilities, procedural gaps, and missed opportunities for early intervention that may exist across jurisdictions.
The Javed Iqbal case from Pakistan, involving sustained violence against children over an extended period before detection, provides a stark reference point for examining these issues. The case underscores how deficiencies in reporting mechanisms, investigative coordination, and child protection infrastructure can contribute to prolonged victimization. By using this case as a comparative lens, the present study seeks to draw legal and institutional insights relevant to strengthening the Indian criminal justice system.
This paper contends that effective handling of serial child murder cases requires a shift beyond a purely punishment-centric model towards an integrated legal response that prioritizes prevention, coordinated investigation, and evidentiary robustness. Through an analysis of the Indian legal framework under the BNS, BNSS, and BSA, supplemented by limited comparative insights from the Javed Iqbal case, the study aims to identify systemic shortcomings and propose reform-oriented measures to enhance the protection of children within the criminal justice system.
Research Problem, Scope and Methodology
- Research Problem
The existing criminal justice framework largely addresses serious offences against children through a post-facto model that prioritizes punishment after the commission of a crime. While such an approach is indispensable for ensuring accountability, it remains insufficient in addressing crimes that occur in a serial and concealed manner. Serial child murder cases expose a deeper systemic problem, wherein prolonged institutional failures in reporting, investigation, and inter-agency coordination allow repeated victimization to occur before state intervention becomes effective.
Despite the introduction of comprehensive criminal law reforms through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the legal system continues to face challenges in identifying and preventing sustained patterns of extreme violence against children. The research problem addressed in this paper is whether the current Indian criminal justice framework is adequately equipped to respond to serial child murder cases in a manner that emphasizes early detection, institutional accountability, and preventive safeguards, rather than relying predominantly on punitive outcomes after irreversible harm has occurred.
- Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is primarily confined to an examination of the Indian criminal justice system, with particular reference to the substantive, procedural, and evidentiary frameworks established under the BNS, BNSS, and BSA. The analysis focuses on how these laws operate in cases involving repeated and extreme crimes against children, and whether they provide sufficient mechanisms for prevention, investigation, and prosecution.
A limited comparative reference is drawn from the Javed Iqbal case in Pakistan, not for the purpose of evaluating foreign governance structures or political systems, but solely to extract legal and institutional insights relevant to the handling of serial child murder cases. The comparative aspect is deliberately restricted to identifying structural gaps and procedural lessons that may inform reform-oriented discussions within the Indian context.
- Research Methodology
This study adopts a doctrinal and comparative research methodology. Primary sources include statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as well as relevant judicial decisions and Law Commission reports. Secondary sources consist of scholarly articles, academic commentaries, and select international legal materials relating to crimes against children and sentencing jurisprudence.
The comparative analysis is employed as a supplementary tool to enhance critical engagement with the Indian legal framework, rather than as an independent evaluation of foreign legal systems. Emphasis is placed on analytical reasoning and normative critique, with the objective of identifying legislative and institutional reforms capable of strengthening India’s response to serial crimes against children.
Conceptual Framework: Serial Child Murder and Legal Complexity
- Serial Offending and the Nature of Extreme Criminality
Serial offending represents a distinct category of criminal behaviour that differs fundamentally from isolated acts of violence.[1] Unlike single-instance crimes, serial offences involve repetition, planning, concealment, and a sustained period of victimisation. In the context of crimes against children, this repetition is often facilitated by systemic weaknesses such as delayed reporting of missing children, inadequate data sharing among authorities, and the absence of effective monitoring mechanisms. As a result, serial child murder cases expose not merely individual culpability but persistent institutional blind spots that allow patterns of violence to remain undetected.[2]
From a legal perspective, the serial nature of such crimes challenges traditional assumptions underlying criminal law, which tends to conceptualize offences as discrete events rather than ongoing processes. The difficulty lies in the fact that criminal law responses are typically triggered only after a specific offence is identified, leaving limited scope for early intervention where repeated criminal conduct develops incrementally and covertly.[3]
- Mens Rea, Psychopathy, and Criminal Responsibility
A central issue in cases involving serial offenders is the question of criminal responsibility, particularly where claims of mental abnormality arise. Psychopathy, while frequently invoked in criminological discourse, does not equate to legal insanity.[4] Most legal systems, including India’s, require a demonstrable incapacity to understand the nature or wrongfulness of an act in order to negate criminal responsibility.[5] Serial offenders, by contrast, often exhibit a high degree of planning, concealment, and awareness of consequences, thereby satisfying the requirements of mens rea under criminal law.[6]
In cases of serial child murder, the presence of repeated intentional acts over an extended period strengthens the inference of deliberate intent rather than diminished responsibility.[7] The legal challenge, therefore, lies not in determining culpability but in addressing the failure of institutions to detect such conduct at an earlier stage. This distinction is crucial, as conflating psychopathy with legal incapacity risks shifting focus away from systemic accountability and towards an individualised medical narrative that offers limited preventive value.
- Limitations of Deterrence-Based Criminal Law
Criminal law has traditionally relied on deterrence and punishment as its primary tools for addressing serious offences.[8] While severe penalties, including life imprisonment and capital punishment, serve important symbolic and retributive functions, their effectiveness in preventing serial crimes against children remains limited.[9] Serial offenders often operate under conditions where detection is unlikely, thereby diminishing the deterrent impact of harsh sentencing.
Moreover, deterrence-based models assume rational calculation of consequences, an assumption that becomes increasingly fragile in cases involving extreme deviance and prolonged offending.[10] The persistence of serial child murder cases suggests that punitive severity alone is insufficient to prevent such crimes.[11] Instead, these cases highlight the need for a preventive legal framework that prioritises early identification of risk patterns, coordinated investigative responses, and institutional mechanisms capable of intervening before harm escalates.
This conceptual understanding forms the foundation for evaluating the adequacy of India’s criminal justice framework under the BNS, BNSS, and BSA. By recognising serial child murder as a systemic and process-driven failure rather than an isolated legal anomaly, the analysis shifts towards identifying structural reforms necessary for meaningful prevention and protection.
Comparative Case Context: The Javed Iqbal Case (Pakistan)
- Brief Factual Context (Legally Relevant Overview)
The Javed Iqbal case represents one of the most extreme instances of serial violence against children in South Asia, not because of its factual notoriety, but due to the prolonged period during which repeated offences remained undetected. The case came to light only after the accused voluntarily disclosed his actions to law enforcement authorities, revealing a pattern of sustained criminal conduct that had continued over several years without effective institutional intervention. The delayed discovery of the offences highlighted serious deficiencies in mechanisms for reporting missing children and in the ability of authorities to identify recurring patterns of victimisation at an early stage.[12]
From a legal standpoint, the significance of the case lies less in the individual acts of violence and more in the systemic conditions that enabled their continuation. The absence of coordinated child protection frameworks, coupled with fragmented investigative processes, created an environment in which repeated offences could occur without triggering timely state response. The case thus serves as a reference point for examining how institutional inertia and procedural gaps can undermine the protective function of criminal justice systems.[13]
- Institutional and Procedural Failures
A critical examination of the Javed Iqbal case reveals that the persistence of the offences was facilitated by multiple institutional shortcomings rather than by the ingenuity of the offender alone. Reports indicate that complaints regarding missing children were often treated as isolated incidents, without aggregation or pattern analysis that could have prompted deeper investigation.[14] The lack of integrated databases and inter-agency coordination meant that early warning signs went unrecognised, allowing serial victimisation to continue unchecked.
These failures underscore a broader structural issue common to many criminal justice systems, including India’s, where the absence of specialised protocols for handling missing children limits the capacity for preventive intervention. The case illustrates how procedural frameworks that rely heavily on reactive policing are ill-suited to address crimes that develop incrementally and exploit systemic blind spots.[15]
- Sentencing Response and Its Limits
Following conviction, the sentencing response in the Javed Iqbal case was marked by the imposition of capital punishment, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the prevailing retributive rationale within the legal framework.[16] While the sentence aligned with public demands for severe punishment, it did little to address the underlying institutional failures that had allowed the crimes to persist for an extended period prior to detection.
From a comparative perspective, the case demonstrates the limitations of post-conviction punishment as a sole response to serial crimes against children. Severe sentencing may satisfy retributive and expressive functions of criminal law, but it does not retrospectively remedy procedural deficiencies or prevent similar failures in future cases. The value of the case, therefore, lies not in its punitive outcome but in its capacity to inform reform-oriented discussions on prevention, investigation, and child protection mechanisms within other jurisdictions, including India.
Substantive Criminal Law Response in India under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
The substantive criminal law response to serial child murder in India is primarily governed by the offence of murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 103 of the BNS prescribes punishment for murder, including life imprisonment and the death penalty, depending on the gravity of the offence and judicial assessment of culpability.[17] In cases involving repeated and deliberate killing of children, the substantive ingredients of murder intention and knowledge are generally satisfied with a high degree of clarity due to the pattern, planning, and concealment involved in serial offending.
Indian sentencing jurisprudence in cases of extreme violence has been shaped significantly by the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which restricts the imposition of capital punishment to exceptional circumstances where life imprisonment is deemed inadequate.[18] In serial child murder cases, courts often view the multiplicity of victims, vulnerability of children, and breach of societal trust as aggravating factors that may justify enhanced punishment. However, while sentencing severity addresses the expressive and retributive functions of criminal law, it does not directly confront the systemic failures that allow serial crimes to persist undetected over time.
Another important dimension concerns criminal responsibility in cases involving claims of mental abnormality. Indian criminal law draws a clear distinction between legal insanity and psychological conditions such as psychopathy. The presence of sustained planning, awareness of consequences, and efforts at concealment in serial offences typically negates any defense based on lack of mens rea.[19]As a result, substantive criminal law faces little difficulty in attributing liability to serial offenders. The legal challenge lies not in defining culpability, but in addressing the inability of the law to intervene before multiple offences occur.
From a critical perspective, the BNS framework remains predominantly offence-centric and punitive. While it provides adequate tools for post-conviction accountability, it does not incorporate mechanisms that recognize serial offending as a process requiring early legal disruption. The substantive law thus functions effectively at the endpoint of criminal behavior, but remains structurally disconnected from preventive and protective strategies necessary to address prolonged victimization of children. This limitation underscores the need to complement substantive criminal provisions with procedural and institutional safeguards capable of identifying and interrupting serial patterns of violence at an earlier stage.
Procedural Safeguards and Investigation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The procedural response to serious offences in India is governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure. The BNSS establishes the legal framework for registration of offences, investigation, arrest, and trial, and is particularly significant in cases involving vulnerable victims such as children. Under Section 173 of the BNSS, the police are mandated to register information relating to cognizable offences, a provision that is central to the early detection of crimes involving missing children.[20] However, the effectiveness of this safeguard depends heavily on the responsiveness of law enforcement authorities and the treatment of complaints as part of a broader pattern rather than isolated incidents.
In cases of serial offending, procedural law plays a critical role in enabling timely intervention. The BNSS confers investigative powers on the police to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests, subject to judicial oversight by Magistrates.[21] Despite these powers, procedural mechanisms remain largely reactive, activated only after the commission of an identifiable offence. The absence of mandatory protocols for aggregating missing persons’ data or for inter-agency coordination limits the capacity of procedural law to address crimes that unfold gradually over time.
Judicial oversight under the BNSS is intended to serve as a safeguard against arbitrariness and investigative lapses. Magistrates exercise control over remand, supervision of investigation, and compliance with procedural requirements.[22] However, this oversight is typically confined to individual cases and does not extend to systemic monitoring of recurring patterns of victimization. As a result, procedural law ensures fairness and legality in prosecution but remains insufficiently equipped to function as a preventive tool in cases of prolonged and repeated criminal conduct.
From a comparative standpoint, the Javed Iqbal case illustrates how procedural failures particularly the delayed recognition of recurring disappearances can undermine the protective function of criminal justice systems. While the BNSS provides a more structured procedural framework than earlier laws, its focus remains firmly on post-offence investigation. Without institutional mechanisms that integrate procedural law with child protection systems and data-driven policing, the capacity of criminal procedure to prevent serial crimes against children remains limited.
Evidentiary Challenges under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and Concluding Observations
The evidentiary framework governing criminal trials in India is contained in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which regulates the admissibility and evaluation of evidence. In cases involving serial offences against children, evidentiary challenges often arise due to delayed reporting, absence of eyewitnesses, and reliance on circumstantial and expert evidence. The BSA permits the use of expert testimony, including medical and forensic evidence, to establish patterns of conduct and causation, which is particularly relevant in prosecutions involving multiple victims.[23]
Confessions and statements form another critical aspect of evidentiary analysis. The BSA maintains a cautious approach to confessional evidence, recognising the risk of coercion and false admissions.[24] In serial crime cases, corroboration assumes heightened importance, as courts must ensure that convictions rest on reliable and legally admissible evidence rather than on the notoriety of the allegations. While the evidentiary framework provides safeguards against wrongful conviction, it simultaneously reveals the difficulty of reconstructing prolonged criminal conduct after significant time has elapsed.
Conclusion
This paper has examined the Javed Iqbal case as a comparative reference to critically assess the adequacy of India’s criminal justice response to serial crimes against children. The analysis of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam demonstrates that Indian law possesses robust mechanisms for attributing liability and imposing severe punishment after conviction. However, these frameworks remain largely reactive and offence-centric, offering limited capacity for early detection and prevention of serial victimization.
The comparative insights drawn from the Pakistani case underscore the need for a shift in focus from purely punitive responses to integrated preventive strategies. Strengthening procedural coordination, enhancing data-driven policing, and embedding child protection mechanisms within criminal procedure are essential to ensuring that criminal law fulfils not only its retributive function but also its constitutional obligation to protect vulnerable populations.
References
[1] David Canter, Criminal Psychology: Topics in Applied Psychology (2nd edn, Hodder Education 2012).
[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Handbook on Effective Police Responses to Violence against ChildrenAndrew Ashworth and Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019). (UNODC 2019).
[3] Andrew Ashworth and Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019). https://www.scribd.com/document/962506224/Ashworth-s-Principles-of-Criminal-Law-9th-Edition-Horder-ebook-instantly-accessible-content. Accessed 14/01/2026
[4] R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 (CA). https://www.scribd.com/document/826637171/R-v-Byrne-1960-2-QB-396. Accessed14/01/2026
[5] Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563.
[6] State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57.
[7] K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code (7th edn, Universal Law Publishing 2022).
[8] H L A Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2008). https://johngardnerathome.info/pdfs/punishmentandresponsibility.pdf. Accessed 14/01/2026
[9] Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684.
[10] Law Commission of India, Report No 262: The Death Penalty (2015). https://www.scribd.com/document/887312399/The-262nd-Law-Commission-Report-on-Capital-Punishment-in-India#:~:text=Punishment%20in%20India-,The%20262nd%20Law%20Commission%20Report%20on%20Capital%20Punishment%20in%20India,compensation%20and%20witness%20protection%20schemes. Accessed 14/01/2026
[11] N V Paranjape, Criminology and Penology (19th edn, Central Law Publications 2021).
[12] Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Javed Iqbal’ (Britannica Online) https://www.britannica.com accessed 14 January 2026.
[13] The Guardian, ‘Pakistan serial killer who murdered dozens of boys is sentenced to death’ (The Guardian, 2000).
[14] United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Child Protection Systems in South Asia (UNICEF 2018).
[15] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime (UNODC 2015).
[16] Amnesty International, ‘Pakistan: Death penalty cases involving crimes against children’ (Amnesty International Report, 2001). https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act500092004en.pdf. 14/01/2026
[17] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 103.
[18] Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684.
[19] Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563.
[20] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 173.
[21]Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, ss 35, 38.
[22] Manubhai Ratilal Patel v State of Gujarat (2013) 1 SCC 314.
[23] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, ss 39–45.
[24] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, ss 22–25.
