Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term Of Father, Brother In 'Honour Killing' Of 2 Minor Girls; Relies On Pre- & Post-Crime Conduct
The Allahabad High Court last week affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a father and his son for the 'Honour Killing' of 2 minor girls after finding the appellants' conduct before and after the commission of the crime to be "highly relevant" under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi thus dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Ram Prasad and his son, Chandra Bhan, while upholding the 2019 judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Amroha.
The trial court had convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 r/w 201 IPC for the murder of Dayawati (13) and Dharmwati (11).
Case in brief
According to the prosecution's case, on October 16, 2016, Ram Prasad (father of the minor girls) allegedly left home after scolding his daughters. It was subsequently claimed that the two girls had gone to a nearby mango orchard, where they committed suicide by hanging themselves with their dupattas.
Their bodies were then taken by family members to the khadar of the Ganga river and buried without informing the police.
Acting on a written report lodged by the village ex-Pradhan, the police registered an FIR and, after obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, exhumed the bodies for post-mortem examination.
The post-mortem examination, however, completely belied the suicide theory. The doctor found multiple ante-mortem injuries on both girls and opined that the cause of death in each case was asphyxia due to throttling.
High Court's observations
The High Court noted that there were no ligature marks or injuries indicative of hanging, concluding that both deaths were homicidal. It observed:
"It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the deceased girls, Dayawati and Dharmwati, were murdered by throttling, and their deaths were homicidal that occurred under abnormal circumstances".
Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence; there was no eyewitness, no "last seen" evidence; almost all material witnesses had turned hostile; and the trial court had erroneously relied upon statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which are not substantive evidence.
They contended that the chain of circumstances remained incomplete and the conviction was therefore unsustainable.
Opposing the appeal, the State argued that despite the hostility of the prosecution witnesses, several incriminating circumstances unmistakably pointed towards the appellants.
It highlighted that they neither informed the police about the alleged suicide nor followed the ordinary course expected after an unnatural death, instead burying the bodies secretly before they could be examined.
The State also submitted that the murders constituted an honour killing.
After examining the entire evidence, the High Court observed that although several prosecution witnesses had resiled from their earlier statements, their testimony nonetheless established that the girls were not found hanging and that the theory of suicide had been projected only to divert the police and create a false impression.
The Court further noted that the deaths were abnormal, yet the appellants hurriedly buried the bodies in the khadar of the Ganga river without informing the police.
It also observed that if the defence version of suicide were true, the appellants would naturally have informed the police station concerned.
"This fact indicates and reveals their intention to conceal the crime committed by them", the Bench said.
The Bench held that the appellants' conduct, both before and after the commission of the offence, was highly relevant. Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan 2013 and Mandhari v. State of Chhattisgarh 2002, the Court reiterated that the conduct of an accused having a nexus with the offence is a relevant circumstance and can legitimately be considered while appreciating circumstantial evidence.
The Bench held that the appellants' silence after the incident, failure to inform the police, omission to prepare a panchnama and burial of the bodies in the Ganga river's khadar with the clear intention of destroying evidence constituted highly relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
"The conduct and behaviour of the appellants surely and certainly, without any doubt, indicate their guilty minds", the Court remarked.
The High Court further concluded that the complete chain of circumstantial evidence excluded every hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants. It remarked:
"The complete chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence points exclusively toward the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, it is conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt that no one other than the appellants committed the offence".
The Bench also expressly observed that the murders had been committed "for the sake of honour and dignity of the family" and found no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence.
Holding that the findings were based on "unimpeachable circumstantial evidence" and in accordance with settled principles of law, the Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence awarded to both appellants and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title - Ram Prasad and Anr. vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513