The Allahabad High Court has upheld the life sentence imposed on a couple for the 2014 murders of their 15-year-old daughter and their tenant after discovering that the girl was pregnant with the tenant’s child.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi delivered the verdict in Smt. Seema Gupta v State of UP. The Court rejected the defence claim that the deaths were suicides and held that the evidence clearly established strangulation.
Murders Followed Discovery of Pregnancy
The Court found that the prosecution successfully proved that the killings occurred soon after the accused learnt of the pregnancy.
Pradeep Kumar, aged 28, worked as a teacher and lived as a tenant in the house of Mukesh Gupta and his wife, Seema Gupta. According to the State, the couple committed the murders due to the alleged “illicit relationship” between Kumar and their minor daughter. The prosecution described the incident as an honour killing.
The trial court had convicted the couple in February 2020 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged that decision before the High Court.
Section 106 Evidence Act Applied
Importantly, the High Court noted that both deaths occurred inside the appellants’ premises. Therefore, the circumstances fell within their exclusive knowledge.
The Bench observed that the accused failed to explain how the “twin murders” took place inside their home. Consequently, the Court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and held that the appellants did not discharge their burden.
Motive Established: Social Stigma and Pregnancy
After examining the record, the Court held that the evidence clearly established the minor girl’s pregnancy. It also found that the appellants believed Pradeep Kumar was responsible.
According to the Bench, this discovery provided a clear and immediate motive for the crime.
While discussing motive, the Court observed that a daughter’s pregnancy outside wedlock often triggers extreme social reactions. It further noted that such reactions may turn violent. The Court remarked that “a daughter’s pregnancy outside wedlock…invites uncontrollable reactions.”
Phone Call to Victim’s Brother Considered Crucial
The Bench also relied on evidence showing that, prior to the murders, Mukesh Gupta called Pradeep Kumar’s brother and informed him about the pregnancy. Police later recovered the phone used for the call from Gupta’s brother-in-law.
Furthermore, the Court determined that both victims died between midnight of August 19, 2014 and the morning of August 20, 2014, in any event before 11:00 a.m. Their bodies were discovered inside a room on the appellants’ premises.
Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Affirmed
On an overall assessment of the evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. These circumstances pointed only to the guilt of the accused.
Advocate Shweta Singh Rana appeared for the accused.
