Allahabad HC Affirms Life Sentence for Father and Son Who Throttled Two Girls and Buried Bodies Near Ganga River

A Division Bench upheld conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, holding that hostile witnesses, the medical evidence of throttling, and the appellants' conduct of secretly burying the bodies together closed the chain of circumstantial evidence.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Ram Prasad and his son Chandra Bhan, affirming their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Ram Prasad's two daughters — Dayawati, aged about 13 years, and Dharmwati, aged about 11 years — in what the court characterised as an honour killing. The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, with the judgment delivered by Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, found that the post-mortem evidence conclusively established death by throttling, and that the appellants' act of silently burying the bodies in the khadar of the Ganga River without informing the police was conduct directly relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fact that nearly all prosecution witnesses of fact turned hostile did not save the appellants, as the court held that their conduct alone was sufficient to close the chain of circumstantial evidence against them.

The Incident and the Trial Court Proceedings

On 16 October 2016, according to the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) lodged at Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha, Gangadas (PW-1), an Ex-Gram Pradhan, reported that Ram Prasad had scolded his daughters before leaving for his relatives' house that morning. The two girls then went to a nearby field to fetch fodder. Near the field, inside a mango orchard, both were reportedly found hanging from the branch of a mango tree by their dupattas. Ram Prasad and his family members, without informing the police, took the dead bodies to the Ganga River and buried them in the khadar.

The FIR, Case Crime No. 198 of 2016, was registered on 19 October 2016 against unknown offenders under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Investigating Officer, SHO Mustakim Ali (PW-10), found the circumstances suspicious and wrote to the District Magistrate, Amroha, seeking permission for exhumation. After the District Magistrate nominated the SDM, Hasanpur, the bodies were exhumed in the presence of Jasveer Singh, Tehsildar, Hasanpur.

Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (PW-12) conducted the post-mortem examination on both bodies. On Dharmwati's body, he found four ante-mortem injuries including bruises on the front of the neck and the back of the head, and opined the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. On Dayawati's body, he found four ante-mortem injuries including bruises on the left side of the neck and near the left eye, and reached the same conclusion. He found no ligature marks or injuries indicative of hanging. The tongues of both girls were protruding; in Dharmwati's case, fecal matter had been discharged.

Charges were framed on 2 May 2017 under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. In their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied the charges and claimed false implication due to enmity. The Trial Court — the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Amroha — convicted both appellants on 15 January 2019, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC with a fine of Rs 10,000 each, and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC with a fine of Rs 5,000 each. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Default of fine payment attracted an additional three months' imprisonment.

The Appellants' Challenge: Hostile Witnesses and No Eyewitness

Before the High Court, the appellants' counsel argued that the entire prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence without a complete chain, there was no eyewitness to the killing, and no evidence of last seen together. Critically, the counsel pointed out that all prosecution witnesses of fact had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution story before the Trial Court.

It was also argued that the Trial Court had wrongly relied on statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are not substantive evidence and can only be used for the purpose of contradiction. With no cogent evidence, the counsel submitted, the conviction was unsustainable and the impugned judgment deserved to be set aside.

The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, countered that though witnesses turned hostile, all incriminating circumstances pointed squarely at Ram Prasad and Chandra Bhan. The State submitted that as father and brother of the deceased, they were legally obligated to report the unnatural deaths to the police. Instead, they buried the bodies quietly in the Ganga khadar. The State characterised the killings as honour killing, with the appellants committing the murders as father and brother of the deceased girls. Post-mortem evidence, the State argued, left no room for the defence version of suicide by hanging.

How the Bench Reasoned Through Hostile Witnesses and Conduct Evidence

The Division Bench noted that the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) was itself designed to “indirectly throw a curtain over the crime” by describing the deaths as a suicide by hanging. Gangadas (PW-1), an Ex-Gram Pradhan who lodged the report, had framed the incident as a hanging, a narrative the court found was intended to divert police attention.

The court carefully analysed each hostile witness. Smt. Suman (PW-2), wife of Chandra Bhan, resiled from her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement in which she had said she saw her husband and father-in-law accompany the deceased girls at 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. on 16 October 2016 to collect fodder, and also that she had seen the girls with Pawan in an objectionable condition. Nardev (PW-3), the village Chowkidar, admitted that he received information about the girls' deaths and had conveyed it along with Gangadas to the police station. Rajpal Singh (PW-4), who wrote the FIR on Gangadas's dictation, claimed the Daroga Ji had dictated the tahreer to him at the police station. Pawan Kumar (PW-5) stated he was not present in the village on the date of incident. Rishipal (PW-8) and Malwati (PW-9) confirmed that the dead bodies were exhumed from the Ganga khadar in their presence and that Panchayatnama proceedings were conducted.

The bench held that although the witnesses did not support the prosecution story, their collective evidence established one key fact: the deceased girls were not found hanging. The claim of suicide by hanging was a false narrative set up to create a misleading impression. The medical evidence was unequivocal — four ante-mortem injuries on each girl, cause of death throttling in both cases, and no ligature marks consistent with hanging.

On the question of conduct, the bench applied Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439, which held that the conduct of an accused must have nexus with the crime and is relevant whether it was previous or subsequent to the offence. The bench also drew on Mandhari v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2002) 4 SCC 308, in which a false report of suicide, combined with the unnatural conduct of the accused after the incident, led to the only irresistible conclusion of guilt.

Applying those principles, the court found the appellants' post-incident conduct overwhelmingly incriminating. Ram Prasad and Chandra Bhan did not inform any villager. They prepared no panchnama. In the absence of villagers, they carried the dead bodies to the Ganga khadar and buried them with the clear intention of destroying evidence. They then went to their relatives' places. If the girls had genuinely hanged themselves and the appellants were innocent, the court reasoned, they would have reported the matter to the police at Police Station Saidnagli.

On the absence of a proven motive, the bench cited Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90, for the proposition that while motive assumes importance in circumstantial evidence cases, its absence alone cannot dislodge the entire prosecution case, as motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with accuracy. The court went on to hold that the murders were committed for the sake of the family's honour and dignity, with the appellants applying high pressure while throttling the girls, causing the tongues of both to protrude and, in Dharmwati's case, causing the discharge of fecal matter.

The court found that the Trial Court had thoroughly evaluated all oral and documentary evidence, successfully linked every chain of circumstantial evidence, and passed the conviction order in accordance with settled principles of law. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court's judgment.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1271 of 2019 as devoid of merit. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15 January 2019, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Amroha, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2016, was affirmed. The appellants, who are in jail, were directed to remain in jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the Trial Court. A copy of the judgment and the lower court record were directed to be sent to the Trial Court forthwith for compliance.