Allahabad High Court Acquits Mother Sentenced To Death For Killing 3 Children, Finds Child Witness's Testimony 'Tutored'
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a mother who was sentenced to death for killing her three children while stating that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court found that the testimony of the 8-year-old surviving child witness suffered from "irreconcilable contradictions" and exhibited "clear hallmarks of tutoring".
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the conviction and sentences of Priyanka and her alleged paramour, Ashish @ Daini.
While Appellant-Priyanka had been sentenced to death by the trial court, Appellant-Ashish had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court acquitted both and directed that they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
The case concerned the deaths of three children, Madhav @ Gunga (6), Aditya @ Tilla (5) and Mangal (4), whose bodies were recovered from the Sengur River in Auraiya on June 27, 2024.
Case in brief
The prosecution alleged that Appellant-Priyanka had taken her 4 sons to a bridge over the Sengur River at around 5 AM in collusion with Appellant-Ashish @ Daini, the younger brother of her deceased husband.
According to the FIR, the two had an illicit relationship and wanted to get rid of the children so that they could continue their relationship. It was alleged that they attempted to drown all four children, but Sonu, the eldest, survived while the other three died.
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Auraiya, in July 2025, convicted both under Section 302 read with Section 120 B IPC. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹1 lakh each, while Priyanka was additionally sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC.
The Conviction was primarily based on the testimony of Sonu, the appellant Priyanka's fourth child.
High Court's observations
The High Court examined the principles governing the evidence of child witnesses, observing that tender age does not automatically disqualify a child from testifying. However, the credibility of such evidence requires "rigorous judicial scrutiny".
The Bench considered the testimony of Sonu (8), who stated that his mother had taken him and his 3 brothers to the river and tried to drown them one by one. He claimed that he survived by pretending to have died and subsequently sought help from a person grazing goats, who directed him to a lane where he met Gram Pradhan (Jitendra Bhushan).
According to Sonu, the Pradhan took him home, where he narrated the incident, following which the Pradhan informed the police. He had also stated that Manish, the first informant, was his uncle, and he had told him about the incident, and he had got the FIR lodged.
However, the first informant (Manish) gave a different version, stating that information about the deaths had been given to the police by the Pradhan and that he had received information from there, not from the child. He further stated that he did not know the name of the person who had informed him about the incident.
The Court also noted that although Sonu claimed that the police had taken him to the police station after the incident, his statement was not recorded on that date. It was recorded only on July 5, 2024.
In view of this, the Bench observed thus:
"The internal contents of the child's deposition unequivocally demonstrate that the child was an easy prey to tutoring and was swayed by the influence of adult relatives i.e. his bua and fufa. The narrative provided by the child appears artificially structured and lacks the natural spontaneity expected from an 8-year-old child who allegedly witnessed a tragic traumatic incident involving his own mother and siblings...The sole testimony of the 8 year-old child witness suffers from irreconcilable contradictions and exhibits clear hallmarks of tutoring, rendering it wholly unsafe to form the sole basis of conviction".
The Bench also scrutinized the evidence of PW-1 Manish. It noted that he gave different versions regarding the source of information about the incident.
The Court further noted that although Manish claimed to have reached the spot at around 9 AM and to have been present when the panchayatnamas were prepared, he was not a witness to any of them.
"Thus, it is apparent that his conduct is unnatural and he is not a reliable witness", the Court said.
The Court also considered the fact that the prosecution had failed to examine Gram Pradhan. It noted that the Pradhan had been the first person to inform the police about the deaths through an application. The police thereafter reached the spot, recovered the bodies and proceeded with the panchayatnamas and post-mortems. His statement had also been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC.
Despite being a material witness, the Pradhan was not examined before the trial court. The Bench said that his examination was "absolutely vital" to establish the genesis of the incident and the manner in which the crime was first disclosed. It consequently drew an adverse inference against the prosecution.
The Court observed that had the Pradhan been produced and subjected to cross-examination, his testimony might not have supported the prosecution narrative or might have exposed the “true genesis of the incident.”
The Bench also identified several defects in the investigation, including the failure to record the child's statement on the date of the incident, conflicting accounts regarding who pointed out that the site plan was prepared and the failure to lodge an FIR on the Pradhan's application despite a cognizable offence being disclosed and a G.D. entry having been made.
"The lapses committed by the Investigating Officer are of such a fundamental and pervasive nature that they strike at the very root of the prosecution's case", the bench remarked.
The Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of Priyanka and Ashish beyond reasonable doubt and granted them the benefit of doubt.
The criminal appeal filed by Priyanka and the jail appeal filed by Ashish were accordingly allowed. The trial court's judgment was set aside, both accused were acquitted, and their release was ordered if they were not wanted in any other case.
Case Title - Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747