Sanchayita Lahkar

The Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, taking judicial notice that an unmarried daughter's pregnancy is widely regarded as a nightmare in average Indian households — one that frequently provokes violent and uncontrollable parental reactions — upheld the life imprisonment awarded to a couple convicted of killing their 15-year-old daughter and their 28-year-old tenant, who allegedly impregnated her. The court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the husband and wife, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence established their guilt in the double murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution case commenced with an FIR lodged on 20.08.2014 by the deceased’s brother, stating that the deceased, who was a tenant in the appellants’ house, had been accused of impregnating the appellants’ unmarried minor daughter. On the night of 19.08.2014, the informant received phone calls from a mobile number allegedly used by the appellant-father, during which the deceased spoke and appeared frightened.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Expansion And Reform Of Open Correctional Institutions, Constitutes High-Powered Committee To Frame Common Minimum Standards

On 20.08.2014, both the deceased and the minor girl were found dead in a room within the appellants’ premises. Inquest proceedings were conducted and postmortem reports opined death due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. An ultrasound report dated 19.08.2014 showed that the minor girl was approximately 25 weeks pregnant. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced documentary evidence including the FIR, postmortem reports, ultrasound report, site plan, recovery memo of mobile phone, and call detail records. The appellants denied the allegations, pleaded alibi, and examined two defence witnesses.

The court observed that since the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, it was necessary to determine whether the inculpatory circumstances formed an unbroken chain leading to no conclusion other than the appellants' guilt.

On the question of motive, the court noted that an extraordinary reason is required for a parent to take a child's life, stating, "Iconoclasts apart, the affinity of blood between the parents and a child would make the parents the most unlikely suspect in a child's murder." It further recorded that "there are some persons with deviant behaviour who could take such an unusual step and commit a crime of this kind, where another would never."

Taking judicial notice of social realities, the court observed, "since times of yore until contemporary ones, a daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a nightmare. It always invites uncontrollable reactions from parents, mostly violent, either for themselves or the daughter or the wrongdoer or both of them." It further noted that while educated individuals might respond differently, "some might work towards avoiding the embarrassment devising some ways and means, legal or illegal," and that "the appellants represent the ordinary and average cross-section of the Indian society, where extreme reactions to the situation are commonplace."

On the nature of the deaths, the court addressed the defence's argument that the victims may have died by suicide rather than homicide. Referring to the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P. Modi and the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment in Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala Mishra, it stated that "suicidal strangulation is not very common" and that in such cases, "some contrivance is always made to keep the ligature tight after insensibility supervenes." Since no such contrivance was found near either body, the court concluded that "this is a commonplace homicidal death by strangulation and certainly not that uncommon and rare case of suicidal strangulation."

Rejecting the wife's alibi that she was asleep on the upper floor at the time of the incident, the court observed, "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."

On the burden of explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court recorded that "when an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution" but that "there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed."

Regarding the extrajudicial confession attributed to the wife, the court held that since she was in police custody as a suspect at the time, the confessions were hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act and stated that "the extrajudicial confessions attributed to her cannot be read against her."

Finally, the court concluded that all proved circumstances "establish a complete and unbroken chain, which are only consistent with the guilt of the appellants and no other possible hypothesis."

Also Read: 'Judicial Murder': Allahabad High Court Orders Administrative Action Against Trial Judge For Ignoring Death Certificate Evidence To Cause Wrongful Gain In Title Dispute

The Court directed, “In the result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed. The appellant Smt. Seema Gupta is on bail. She will surrender within a period of two weeks of the date of this judgment, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, shall cause her to be taken into custody and commit her to prison to serve out her sentence.”

“The bail bonds furnished by the appellant Smt. Seema are cancelled and the sureties discharged. This order shall be communicated to the appellant, Mukesh Gupta, who is in jail through the Jail Superintendent, Pilibhit by the Registrar (Compliance).” and “Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court concerned along with the lower court record for information and necessary compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Seema Gupta v. State of U.P. (Connected with Mukesh Gupta v. State of U.P.)
Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:31259-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2021; Jail Appeal No. 63 of 2021
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi