Court affirms life sentences for parents convicted of murdering daughter and her alleged lover in a case driven by societal norms.
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court upheld the life sentences of Mukesh Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta for the murder of their daughter and her alleged lover, Pradeep Kumar. The court ruled that the murders were driven by societal pressures after discovering that their minor daughter was pregnant outside of wedlock.
The case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, saw the appellants convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the brutal strangulation of both victims. The High Court, comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, found that a complete and unbroken chain of inculpatory circumstances was established, leaving no room for doubt regarding the appellants' guilt.
The case began on August 20, 2014, when Brajesh Kumar, the brother of the deceased Pradeep Kumar, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) after receiving a distressing call from Mukesh Gupta. Gupta accused Pradeep of having illicit relations with his daughter, leading to her pregnancy. The next morning, Pradeep and the girl were found dead inside the appellants' house, their deaths ruled as homicidal strangulation.
The defense argued that the deaths were suicides, citing the absence of struggle marks on the bodies. However, the court rejected this theory, noting the absence of any contrivance that could sustain the pressure required for self-strangulation. The court also emphasized the strong motive rooted in societal norms against pregnancy outside of wedlock, especially in a conservative setting.
The appellants' inability to provide a credible explanation for the murders within their premises was a critical factor in the court's decision. The court noted that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lay with the appellants to explain the circumstances of the deaths, a burden they failed to discharge.
An extrajudicial confession by Smt. Seema Gupta was deemed inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, as it was made while in police custody. Nevertheless, the court found the circumstantial evidence compelling enough to uphold the convictions.
The judgment also highlighted the role of societal norms in driving the crime, recognizing the intense pressures faced by families in such situations. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's stance against so-called "honour killings," emphasizing the rule of law over societal pressures.
Despite the defense's efforts, led by counsel Ms. Sweta Singh Rana, the court found the evidence against the appellants overwhelming. The judgment concludes a high-profile case that has drawn attention to the severe repercussions of societal norms on individual actions.
Bottom Line:
Case involving circumstantial evidence where appellants were convicted of murdering their daughter and her alleged lover - Motive established through discovery of pregnancy outside wedlock and suspicion against the deceased man - Appellants failed to provide a cogent explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the twin murders occurring within their premises.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302/34
- Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106
- Evidence Act, 1872 Section 26
Smt. Seema Gupta v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2856921
