UP Court Sentences Woman, Lover To Death For Strangling Husband And Planting Live Snake To Pass Off Murder As Snakebite

A Sessions Court in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, last week sentenced a woman (28) and her lover (20) to death for murdering her husband (31) and placing a live snake beside his body to make the killing appear to be a snakebite death.

Additional Sessions Judge Jaiveer Singh Nagar concluded that the case fell within the "rarest of rare" category as the murder was premeditated, the victim was asleep and helpless when killed and that the accused attempted to conceal the crime by making his death appear to have been caused by a snakebite.

In its 127-page Judgment written primarily in Hindi, the Court also cited the following shloka from the Atreya Samhita:

"दुष्टस्य दंडः स्वजनस्य पुजा न्यायेन कोशस्य हि वर्धनं च। अपक्षपातः निजराष्ट्ररक्षा पञ्चैव धर्माः कथिता नृपाणाम्" (Punishing the wicked, honouring virtuous men, enhancing the dignity of the State through just and righteous governance, treating those who approach for justice fairly and without discrimination, and protecting one's nation—these are considered the five principal virtues of the justice system)

The court also sentenced both convicts to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Death Sentence is, however, subject to confirmation by the Allahabad High Court as per Section 407 BNSS.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, Appellant-Ravita was in an extramarital relationship with Appellant-Amardeep, which allegedly led to disputes between her and her husband, Amit (deceased). A quarrel had taken place between the couple on April 12, 2025.

The next morning, Amit was found dead on a cot at his home, with a live snake beside his body. His brother also noticed injury marks on Amit's face and neck.

The family took Amit to a hospital in Meerut, where doctors indicated that his death had not been caused by a snakebite. The post-mortem examination also established that he had died due to strangulation. The medical evidence revealed fractures of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage.

During the investigation, it emerged that appellants [Ravita and Amardeep] were allegedly in a relationship. The prosecution also presented evidence that Amardeep had obtained a snake from a snake charmer for ₹1,000.

The snake charmer testified that Amardeep had asked for a ghoda pachhad snake for a religious gathering and paid him Rs. 1000.

Court's observations

In its judgment, the court relied on circumstantial evidence, including testimony concerning the appellants' relationship and call-detail records showing repeated and lengthy telephone conversations between them.

It also considered the testimony of those who had been called to remove the snake from beside Amit's body. The prosecution further relied on evidence that Amit had become aware of the relationship and had quarreled with Ravita over it.

The court held that the appellants' relationship, which it treated as the motive for the murder, had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Assessing this evidence alongside the medical findings and other circumstances, the court accepted the prosecution's case that Amit had been strangled and that the snake had been placed beside his body to make his death appear to have resulted from a snakebite.

After a full-fledged trial, the court found both appellants guilty, observing that the gravity of the crime lay not merely in the murder of a sleeping person, but also in the attempt to conceal the actual cause of death.

"The gravity of the crime is not merely in the fact that a sleeping person was murdered, but also in the fact that an attempt was made to conceal the actual crime by leaving a snake beside the deceased to make his death appear to be the result of a snakebite", the court observed in its judgment.

While considering whether the case warranted capital punishment, the court said the accused had allegedly planned the murder in such a manner that the victim could not raise an alarm and people sleeping nearby would not hear his cries.

"The accused persons, while the man was asleep at night-a time when a person feels safest in his own home-strangled him and smothered his mouth to such an extent that he could not even cry out. This act of killing appears, in itself, to have been committed with extreme cruelty and in an arbitrary manner", the Court remarked.

It further observed that the murder was not the result of a sudden outburst or momentary dispute, but was committed pursuant to a premeditated plan.

The Court stressed that the victim/deceased was lying on a cot had no reason to believe that his own wife, in whom a person places the greatest trust, would murder him.

It stated that the act committed by the accused breaks the trust placed in relationships and social norms. It added thus:

"When a murder is committed merely to satisfy sexual desire, it reflects utter depravity and baseness. The murder was committed in cold blood, without any provocation...the accused persons deliberately left a snake on the cot as part of their plan, which demonstrates their cunning and scheming nature. Thus, all the aforesaid circumstances are present in the instant case. Such an act shakes the conscience of society".

The accused argued that the case did not fall within the "rarest of rare" category by contending that the deceased had died due to strangulation and that his body had not been mutilated or burned.

The court rejected this argument after considering the overall circumstances, the manner in which the crime was committed, the roles of the convicts and their conduct after the offence. The court also referred to the cruelty with which the murder was committed. It remarked thus:

"Cruelty is not merely confined to mutilating a person's body, but also includes such cruelty which destroys a person's trust and, at the same time, the conscience of society".

It held that the attempt to make the murder appear to be a snakebite death was a significant feature of the case. The court also concluded that there was no reasonable possibility of the convicts being reformed and rehabilitated in society.

"The crime falls within the category of 'rarest of rare', and there is no scope for any other possibility", the court observed while referring to "cinematic style" of modus operandi of the accused.

It said that the novel method of committing the crime and the novel method of concealing it "take this case towards the rarest of the rare category".

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra 2015, reproducing the following passage on sentencing:

"The object of sentencing policy should be to see that crime does not go unpunished and victim of crime as also the society has satisfaction that justice has been done to it".

After weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court concluded that life imprisonment would be inadequate.