Allahabad High Court acquits woman sentenced to death for killing her 3 children

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday acquitted a woman who was sentenced to death by a trial court last year in connection with the murder of her three minor children in June 2024 [Priyanka v State pf UP and Another]

The accused Priyanka had been convicted along with her cousin-in-law Ashish alias Daini, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy in the murder case.

A Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay acquitted the accused of their charges after finding that the prosecution miserably failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

"The conviction recorded by the learned trial court rests on statement of an uncorroborated, tutored, and contradictory child witness, coupled with a fatal failure to produce the best available evidence, unreliable deposition of PW-1 and investigative lapses. Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the accused appellants on the ground of rule of caution," the Court said.

On June 27 in 2024, 6-year-old Madhav @ Gunga, 5-year-old Aditya @ Tilla and 4-year-old Mangal were found dead near a bridge of Sengur river. A complaint lodged by their uncle Manish alleged that the accused Priyanka along with Ashish alias Daini, a cousin brother of her deceased husband, had taken her four sons to the bridge and tried to kill them all.

However, Sonu, one of the children, had managed to escape the attempt of his mother, the police was told.

The complainant further said that Priyanka, whose husband had died two years prior to the incident, was in love with Ashish and wanted to get rid of the children to continue their relationship.

During trial, the child witness deposed that their mother had tried to drown him and his brothers but he managed to save himself.

It was mainly the child's testimony that had led to the conviction of the accused, including his mother.

However, while considering the appeal filed by the convicts, the High Court found that the child's testimony was full of irreconcilable contradictions and exhibited clear hallmarks of tutoring. Thus, the Court ruled that it was wholly unsafe to form the sole basis of conviction.

The Court noted that the child witness stated that after the incident, he had asked for help from a person who was grazing goats and that person directed him to a particular lane where he met pradhan Jitendra Bhushan.

Thereafter, as per the testimony, the pradhan had contacted the police, who then came to his house and took the child to the police station . The child had also stated that he informed his uncle Manish about the incident who in turn informed the police.

However, the Court found that Manish's statement revealed that the information after the murders was given to the police by pradhan, and that he had also received the information from there and not from the child.

The Court also took note of the delay in recording the child's statement, observing that it creates significant doubt about his presence at the scene of crime on the date and time in question.

"The internal contents of the child's deposition unequivocally demonstrate that the child was an easy prey to tutoring and was swayed by the influence of adult relatives i.e. his bua and fufa. The narrative provided by the child appears artificially structured and lacks the natural spontaneity expected from an 8-year-old child who allegedly witnessed a tragic traumatic incident involving his own mother and siblings," the Court said.

Further, the Court also observed that it was "inherently improbable and unnatural" that the accused would have left the child unharmed while murdering the other three children.

"If an accused mother had indeed succumbed to criminal intent to eliminate her offspring, it defies basic logic and human behaviour that she would spare the eldest child who was fully capable of speaking, observing, and implicating her," the Bench said.

The Court also ruled that complainant Manish's conduct was unnatural. It thus ruled that he was not a reliable witness.

It also pointed out that pradhan Jitendra Bhushan, a material witness, was not examined before the trial court by the prosecution.

"The examination of the Pradhan was absolutely vital to supply the genesis of the incident and to corroborate how the crime was first disclosed. This omission leaves an unbridgeable gap in the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, the Court is bound to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution," the Court said.

It, thus, allowed the appeals filed by the convicts and set aside the trial court ruling.

Senior Advocate Saghir Ahmad served as amicus curiae in the case.

Advocates Gunjan Sharma and Rajarshi Gupta along with Babita Upadhyay represented the convicts.

Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinha represented the State.

[Read Judgment]