Case Explained: Allahabad HC upheld conviction for honour killing of minor pregnant daughter |SCC Times – Legal Perspective

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.

Allahabad High Court: The division bench of J.J. Munir* and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., upheld the conviction of the parents under Section 302 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for honour killing of their minor pregnant daughter and their tenant, who she allegedly had an illicit relationship with.

Background

The incident came to light when the dead bodies of the family’s tenant and the victim daughter were found in a room. A night before the incident, the father had a phone call with the deceased tenant’s brother accusing the tenant of impregnating his unmarried 15-year-old daughter outside the wedlock. The deceased tenant allegedly informed his family that he feared for his life and by the next morning, his family received a call that the tenant and victim daughter had died. Soon after the incident was reported to the police by the deceased tenant’s brother/informant, the parents were taken into custody.

As per the autopsy reports, the cause of death for both was asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation. There was another medical report from Verma Clinic and Maternity Home which stated that the deceased daughter was pregnant.

Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence and statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18-02-2020 convicted and sentenced the appellants under section 302 and 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction, the parents filed the present appeal.

Analysis and Decision

At the outset, the Court stated that though the affinity between parents and their child would make them the most unlikely suspect in the child’s murder, but there were some people who could go against their ordinary instincts.

“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. More than that, there could be very prudent persons in the society who could take their child’s life if confronted with certain kinds of circumstances that drive them counter to their ordinary instincts.”

Thereafter, the Court rejected the father’s plea of alibi holding that his argument of leaving the house to sell goats in the market did not inspire confidence due to lack of evidence of the journey like toll tickets or fuel receipts.

Regarding the mother’s extra judicial confession, the Court noted that the confession was seemingly made in police custody when she was apprehended coinciding with the arrival of the deceased tenant’s family, i.e., she made the confessions in police custody in the presence of the prosecution witnesses. In this regard, the Court referred to Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 10 SCC 437, where the confessions were made to an independent witness before the Police arrived. It was not a case where the confession was in police custody even as a suspect.

Thus, the Court held that the principle laid down in Ishwari Lal Yadav (supra) had no application in the present case, where the mother was in the custody of the Police, albeit as a suspect, when she is said to have made the confessions. Accordingly, the confessions were hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and could not be read against her.

“The parents having failed to come up with a cogent explanation supported by necessary evidence about the twin homicides inside their house, the fact serves as an important link in the chain of evidence against the appellants, speaking about their complicity.”

The Court after examining the witnesses and evidence presented, held the following circumstances have, therefore, been proved by the prosecution to the hilt:

1. the tenant lived, a 28-year-old man, in a part of the house and was a teacher at a college as well as privately coached students;

2. the deceased tenant’s brother received a phone call in the night of 19-08-2014 i.e., the night of the incident, where the caller identified himself as the father and accused the deceased of impregnating his unmarried daughter. The call was repeated once and the deceased tenant also spoke to his mother, calling from the same number on his brother’s number;

“The subject of the phone call and the hour it was made, speaks of desperation that the father experienced. Dovetailed into the above circumstance is the fact that the father made the tenant’s brother speak to the tenant over cellphone.”

3. the tenant and daughter died sometime between the midnight of 19-08-2014 and the morning hours of 20-08-2014 and the dead bodies were found in a room within the house. The Court also noted that no alternative explanation was offered as to who, besides the parents, had access or could have committed homicide;

4. the phone, from which calls were made to the deceased tenant’s family, was recovered by the Police from the house from the custody of the brother-in-law of the father, who was staying in the premises;

5. The deceased tenant was alive till 11:56 AM on 19-08-2014 when the last call was made to his brother;

6. the daughter, was 15 years old at the time and had been examined by a gynaecologist, wherein she was found pregnant as per the medical report dated 19-08-2014, i.e., the day of the incident;

7. the victims were murdered soon after discovery of her pregnancy outside wedlock and the tenant was suspected by the parents of impregnating the daughter;

8. the cause of death is strangulation and there is no such extraordinary contrivance, which may show the strangulation to be suicidal;

9. there was a strong motive in the totality of circumstances for the parents to murder the two as their minor daughter was pregnant outside wedlock due to an illicit relationship with their tenant; and,

10. the fact that the parents failed to discharge their burden under Section 106 IEA.

The Court remarked, “We must take judicial notice of the fact that 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.”

The Court after putting all the circumstances together held that it established a complete and unbroken chain, which was consistent with the guilt of the parents and there was no other possible hypothesis. The Court therefore, opined that the parents have been rightfully convicted by the Trial Judge of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 34 IPC.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, directed the mother to surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment and serve out her sentence. The bail bonds furnished by her were cancelled and the sureties discharged. The Court also ordered the same be communicated to the father and a copy of this order to be forwarded to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.

[Seema Gupta v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 448, decided on 11-2-2026]

*Judgment authored by: Justice J.J. Munir

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellants: Shweta Singh Rana, Advocate

For the Respondent: Anil Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE