Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction in NRI Husband’s Murder | Commutes Wife’s Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment and Confirms Co-Accused’s Life Term
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Madan Pal Singh, upheld the conviction of a 38-year-old British woman for murdering her NRI husband but reduced the death penalty imposed by the trial court to life imprisonment. The Court also maintained the life sentence of her co-accused, identified as her associate in the crime. While affirming that the offence was grave and supported by the evidence on record, the Bench observed that the case did not meet the threshold of the “rarest of rare” category necessary for upholding capital punishment.
The case arose from the prosecution of a 38-year-old British woman and her associate for the murder of her husband, a Non-Resident Indian, in Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, in 2016. The incident occurred at the residence of the victim’s mother, where the victim was staying at the time. Following investigation, the trial court convicted the wife for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, and sentenced her to death. Her co-accused, described as her associate and alleged lover, was convicted of the same offences and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Also Read: Supreme Court Jails Tenant for Defying Order to Vacate Premises, Fines Elderly Co-Tenant ₹5 Lakh
According to the prosecution, the murder was planned and executed jointly by the two accused. It was alleged that the wife, harbouring personal motives, conspired with her associate to kill the victim during the night while he was staying at his mother’s home. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness statements, forensic reports, and material recovered during the investigation. These included testimony establishing the presence of both accused at the scene and scientific evidence linking them to the crime.
The defence challenged the prosecution’s narrative, contending that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It questioned the credibility of certain witnesses and the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The defence also sought to contest the severity of the sentence, arguing that the facts did not justify the extreme penalty of death.
The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the wife to be the principal conspirator and held the associate guilty of acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. It concluded that the murder was deliberate and premeditated and awarded the death penalty to the wife while imposing life imprisonment on the co-accused.
The State pressed for confirmation of the death sentence before the High Court. The accused appealed against their conviction and sentences. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court reviewed the evidence, including medical findings, testimonies of key witnesses, and other records from the investigation and trial.
The High Court upheld the convictions of both accused, agreeing that the prosecution had proved the case. However, it concluded that although the crime was grave, it did not fall within the category of the “rarest of rare” cases warranting the death penalty. Consequently, it commuted the woman’s death sentence to life imprisonment while affirming the life term imposed on her co-accused.
The Court stated: “To conclude, we have no doubt that the accused Ramandeep Kaur and Gurupreet Singh alias Mitthu had committed the heinous offence of murder of Sukhjeet Singh.” The Bench, however, addressed sentencing parameters, recording: “We are equally convinced that the present is not a rarest of rare case that may commend award of capital punishment.” The judgment further stated: “The brutality of the occurrence exists, as has been noted above. Also, breach of trust on which any marriage is founded, may also exist. However, the other factors considered by the learned court below to award capital punishment are imagined and such as may never commend to legal reasoning.”
Regarding the reasoning adopted by the trial court on sentence, the Bench stated: “In fact, the learned court below may have done well to not refer to material resources that may have been available to the accused Ramandeep Kaur while she was pursuing her legal remedies while participating at the trial, and certainly not to the mythological tales.” The Court added: “Though, learned court below may not have intended to cause such effect, by adopting that reasoning, it may have inadvertently made observations that appear to be indicative of bias.”
The Bench set out the principle that “Delivery of justice has to be cold and reasoned. No element of emotion or imagination or prejudice may ever be permitted to permeate through the thought process of judicial decision making.” In consequence, the Court held: “According, the death sentence awarded to accused Ramandeep Kaur is altered/converted to life sentence.” The Court declined confirmation of the death sentence, recording: “In view of the above, confirmation of death sentence is declined.”
On the co-appellant, the Court recorded that while the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC would stand affirmed with fine maintained, the conviction and sentence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was set aside on benefit of doubt. The Bench directed that the appellants would serve their remaining sentences accordingly and ordered transmission of the judgment to the court concerned for compliance.
The Bench ordered: “In view of the above, confirmation of death sentence is declined. Reference no. 17 of 2023 is answered accordingly.” The Court disposed of the capital case appeal by recording: “Capital Cases No. – 18 of 2023 is partly allowed. While upholding the conviction of the appellant Ramandeep Kaur, we commute the death sentence awarded to her to one of life imprisonment. The judgment of the trial court therefore is affirmed with the modification that the appellant Ramandeep Kaur shall undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and shall suffer imprisonment for her natural life.”
“Further, Criminal Appeal No. 12268 of 2023 is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned court below to the appellant Gurupreet Singh alias Mitthu for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is affirmed. Fine imposed by the learned court below on that appellant, is maintained.”
“However, his conviction and sentence awarded for offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 is set aside, on a benefit of doubt.” The Court concluded: “Both the appellants Ramandeep Kaur and Gurupreet Singh alias Mitthu are in jail. They shall serve their remaining sentences, accordingly. Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court, at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Manish Tiwary, Senior Advocate (with Atharva Dixit, Pranav Tiwary), Raghuvansh Misra, Rahul Misra; Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Vikas Goswami, A.G.A.-I; G.A.; Pawan Shukla; Sharukh Khan; Suresh Dhar Dwivedi; Ashok Kumar Khanna; Prabhjot Singh; Counsel
Case Title: Ramandeep Kaur v. State of U.P.; Gurupreet Singh @ Mitthu v. State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:175186-DB
Case Numbers: Capital Cases No. 18 of 2023; Reference No. 17 of 2023; Criminal Appeal No. 12268 of 2023
Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh; Justice Madan Pal Singh
