Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term For Man Who Strangled Live-In Partner, Her Mother & 2 Minor Children In 2009
The Allahabad High Court on Monday upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man for strangulating his live-in partner, her mother and her two minor children to death in Hardoi in 2009.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary found that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond the pale of doubt and that there existed a ring of truth in the prosecution story.
The bench thus dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Vinay Pratap Singh alias Bablu and affirmed the 2014 judgment of the Hardoi trial court convicting him under Sections 302, 307 and 404 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case in brief
According to the prosecution's case, the deceased (Babita), an Anganwadi worker, had shifted to her mother's house after the death of her husband and was residing there with her 2 children.
The appellant was living with the deceased in a live-in relationship for about one and a half years before the incident. On the intervening night of June 23 and 24, 2009, a quarrel allegedly took place between them.
The next morning, the deceased, her mother (Nandrani) and the two children were found dead inside the house with cloth nooses tied around their necks. Post-mortem reports confirmed that all 4 had died due to ante-mortem ligature strangulation.
In September 2014, almost 5 years after the incident, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant to life term after considering and appreciating the evidence available on record.
Challenging this judgment, the appellant moved the High Court on the ground that the entire case rested upon circumstantial evidence and there was no direct ocular evidence connecting the accused/appellant with the alleged murder of 4 persons.
It was also his case that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, that the "last seen" theory was doubtful, and that the alleged recoveries were doubtful. He further argued that the FIR was founded only on suspicion and that he had been falsely implicated due to a property dispute.
High Court's observations
Rejecting the submissions of the appellant's counsels, the High Court found that every incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution stood proved.
It noted that the evidence of the complainant, the deceased's sister, and an independent neighbour consistently established that the appellant had been residing with the deceased in the same house for about one and a half years.
The neighbour also deposed that he had witnessed a serious quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on the night preceding the murders and had not seen the appellant leave the house thereafter.
The Court further noted that the appellant himself admitted during his deposition as a defence witness that he shared an intimate relationship with the deceased and had stayed at her house on several occasions.
The Bench further held that the prosecution had also succeeded in proving the motive. Referring to the testimony of the deceased's sister, the Court noted that the appellant was pressurising the deceased to solemnize a court marriage, whereas the deceased was unwilling.
She had also complained that the appellant was unemployed and dependent on her earnings, which led to frequent discord between them.
The Court further accepted the prosecution's reliance on the recovery of jewellery, mobile phones and other articles belonging to the deceased at the appellant's instance soon after the incident.
It stated that these recoveries, coupled with the appellant's conduct after the occurrence and the medical evidence, formed significant links in the chain of circumstances.
"...when four dead bodies were found and admittedly, the Appellant was into a physical relationship with the deceased-Babita and as per his own version wanted to marry her also, then as to why he did not approach the Police immediately and rather would have been the complainant, in case he was not involved in the present crime. This Court further notes that the non-participation of the appellant in the 'panchayatnama' also, shows the conduct of the appellant post-crime is under suspicion and a relevant fact under Section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act," the bench stated.
Referring to the scope of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act in the case, the Bench observed that once the prosecution established the foundational facts, the burden had shifted to the appellant to explain facts especially within his knowledge.
The Court observed:
"A foundational fact was built successfully by the prosecution and thus, a duty was cast upon the appellant to show and explain the evidence which has been brought against him".
This Court said that it did not find that any evidence was led by the Appellant to "come out from the shackles of Section 106" because of other compelling circumstances of 'motive', 'last seen theory' proved against him.
It also found that the appellant's plea of false implication due to a property dispute remained a mere suggestion, unsupported by any evidence.
After examining the entire record, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had proved every circumstance forming the chain of guilt and that the circumstances were inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.
The Court observed:
"The prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond the pale of doubt and that there exists a ring of truth in the prosecution story".
Holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the oral, documentary and medical evidence, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the conviction or sentence. It accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment awarded to the appellant.
Case Title - Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506