'Daughter Pregnancy Sans Marriage A Nightmare For Average Indian': Allahabad High Court Upholds Parents' Life Term In Double Murder Case

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the wife and husband duo who killed their 15-year-old daughter and their tenant with whom she allegedly had an affair, as they were upset over her pregnancy.

In its 33-page order, the Court noted that the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the parents strangled the duo after discovering the minor daughter was pregnant outside of wedlock.

Importantly, the Court observed that such cases invite 'uncontrollable' reactions from parents, mostly violent, either for themselves or the daughter or the wrongdoer or both of them.

The bench added that the 'embarrassment' in such cases is generally very much there amongst any class of persons, but those refined by education might react in a different way, where, notwithstanding disapproval, rapprochement, etc., violence may or may not be there.

"Some might work towards avoiding the embarrassment devising some ways and means, legal or illegal. The appellants represent the ordinary and average cross-section of the Indian society, where extreme reactions to the situation are commonplace", the bench remarked.

The Court thus concluded that the appellants had a motive to commit the crime charged.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the gruesome double murder took place in August 2014 in Shahjahanpur district. The deceased tenant, 28-year-old Pradeep Kumar, lived in a rented room on the ground floor of the appellants' premises and worked as a private tutor.

According to the prosecution's case, on August 19, 2014, the parents (appellants) found that their 15-year-old daughter, 'X', was carrying a 25-week pregnancy.

Hours later, near midnight, the father of the minor victim (Mukesh Gupta/appellant no. 2) called Pradeep's brother (the informant) and accused Pradeep of impregnating his daughter. The next morning, both Pradeep and 'X' were found dead, strangled inside a room on the parents' property.

Following a full-fledged trial, the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Shahjahanpur, in February 2020, convicted the accused (Husband-wife duo) under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life.

Challenging their conviction, the duo moved the High Court.

The division bench, after perusing the evidence on record, observed that the discovery of the pregnancy provided a formidable and absolute motive for the parents to kill their daughter and her alleged lover.

The Bench noted that while highly educated individuals might navigate such embarrassment differently, the appellants represented an "average cross-section of the Indian society, where extreme reactions to the situation are commonplace".

The bench added that while affinity of blood between the parents and a child would make the parents the "most unlikely" suspect in a child's murder, there are some persons with 'deviant' behaviour who could take such an 'unusual' step and commit a crime of this kind.

During the appeal, the defence suggested that the victims might have committed suicide. The bench, however, rejected this theory as it relied on the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P Modi and the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment in Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala Mishra and another.

The HC noted that suicidal strangulation requires a 'contrivance' to maintain lethal pressure but in the present case, no such contrivance was found. Thus, it concluded that it was a case of commonplace homicidal death by strangulation and certainly not that "uncommon and rare” case of suicidal strangulation.

Furthermore, the bench noted that since the murders occurred inside a room that was an integral part of the appellants' own home, the burden of proof u/S 106 Indian Evidence Act was shifted onto the inmates of the house (parents/appellants) to offer a cogent explanation for a crime committed in secrecy on their premises, which they failed to provide.

The Court also rejected the attempt made by the appellants to establish an alibi as it noted that while the father claimed he had left the village on a mini-truck to sell goats in Etawah, he could not produce a single toll plaza receipt or fuel bill to prove his alibi.

Furthermore, call detail records (CDRs) also proved he was using his mobile phone to contact the family of the deceased late into the night.

Regarding the Mother's Alibi, the bench noted that while she claimed she was sleeping on the upper floor with her other children and only discovered the bodies the next morning, the bench found her version to be highly improbable. It remarked thus:

"It is, indeed, unbelievable that 'X', who herself was a minor, aged 15 years and was discovered to be pregnant in a test done earlier in the day on 19th at Budaun, would have been left by the appellant Seema Gupta to sleep by herself on the ground floor, a part of the house where Pradeep was staying in his room".

However, the High Court disagreed with the Trial Court's reliance on an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the mother to the deceased's family.

The Bench clarified that because the mother had already been detained by the police as a suspect at the time of the alleged statement, the confession was hit by Section 26 Evidence Act and the same was legally inadmissible.

However, the Division Bench concluded that the remaining evidentiary links, the confirmed pregnancy, the midnight phone calls, the lack of a suicide contrivance and the failure to explain the bodies inside their own home, formed an unbroken chain pointing unerringly to the parents' guilt.

Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions and life sentences awarded to the parent and dismissed their appeals.