Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence in Daughter-in-Law Strangulation Case, Finds Circumstantial Chain Complete

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed appeals by three convicted in-laws, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence in a matrimonial home strangulation murder was complete and unbroken.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava, on 1 July 2026 dismissed two criminal appeals challenging the conviction of three family members for the murder of Preeti, a young woman who died in her matrimonial home in Village Tadwa Kachhiyan, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Etawah had convicted Sudhakar (husband), Gauri Shankar (father-in-law), and Smt. Munni Devi (mother-in-law) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000. The High Court, delivering its judgment through Justice Munir, found the prosecution's circumstantial case complete and rejected each defence argument, including the suggestion that the deceased may have died by hanging rather than strangulation.

The Case Before the High Court

Kishan Babu, the deceased's father, lodged a written report with the Station House Officer, P.S. Bakewar on 10 May 2015. He stated that his daughter Preeti had been married to Sudhakar on 28 June 2012. At the time of the marriage, he had given Rs. 3 lakh in cash, movables worth Rs. 1.50 lakh, and jewellery including a ring, earrings, and a chain. Shortly after the marriage, Sudhakar, his parents Gauri Shankar and Munni Devi, his brother Pratap Singh, and his sister Neeti began physically assaulting Preeti and demanding an additional Rs. 1 lakh in cash and a Pulsar motorcycle. The informant said Sudhakar would return home drunk in the evenings and beat his wife in that state.

On 8 May 2015 at around 11 o'clock in the morning, Kishan Babu received a call from his daughter saying that her in-laws were beating her and intended to lock her in a room and kill her. He immediately set out with his brother Lakhan Singh and another person, Satya Prakash, and reached the matrimonial home by 2 o'clock. He found his daughter lying dead. She had injuries to her neck and arms and her face bore yellowish marks. Upon his arrival, the inmates of the house deserted the premises. Kishan Babu then contacted the Dial 100 facility and the Superintendent of Police on mobile, following which the Police arrived by 7 o'clock in the evening and removed the body.

A case was registered as Crime No. 191 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, two charge-sheets were submitted: one on 24 June 2015 against Sudhakar and Gauri Shankar, and another on 20 October 2015 against Pratap Singh, Smt. Munni Devi, and Smt. Neeti. The two sessions trials that resulted — Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2015 and Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2015 — were consolidated and tried together.

The trial court convicted Sudhakar, Gauri Shankar, and Munni Devi under Section 302/34 IPC on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but acquitted all three of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the DP Act. Co-accused Pratap Singh and Smt. Neeti were acquitted entirely, being given the benefit of doubt. All three convicted appellants appealed to the High Court.

Medical Evidence: Strangulation, Not Hanging

The autopsy on the deceased was conducted on 9 May 2015. Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, PW-11, found seven ante-mortem injuries. The most significant was a continuous horizontal ligature mark measuring 29.0 x 1.0 cm in the neck below the thyroid, with soft and reddish subcutaneous tissue in the base of the groove, which was ecchymosed. The hyoid bone was fractured on the right side. The cause of death was recorded as asphyxia due to strangulation.

Counsel for the appellants pressed the cross-examination of the autopsy doctor, where the doctor had acknowledged that in cases of hanging, death also occurs from oxygen deprivation. The argument was that it had not been conclusively established that the deceased was strangled by another person, and that she could have died by hanging.

The bench rejected this argument by examining the postmortem findings against the comparative table on hanging and strangulation set out in Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 24th Edition. In cases of hanging, the ligature mark is oblique and non-continuous, placed high in the neck between the chin and the larynx, and the base of the groove is hard, yellow, and parchment-like. The subcutaneous tissue is white, hard, and glistening. In cases of strangulation, the ligature mark is horizontal and continuous, positioned low in the neck below the thyroid, the base is soft and reddish, and the subcutaneous tissue is ecchymosed. Fracture of the hyoid bone is typical of strangulation and uncommon in hanging except in judicial executions.

Every one of these indicators in the present postmortem pointed to strangulation. The ligature mark was continuously horizontal, below the thyroid, with an ecchymosed base. The hyoid was fractured. The bench accepted the autopsy doctor's opinion as unimpeached in any material respect and concluded that this was a case of ante-mortem asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Six additional contusion injuries to the limbs, abdomen, hip, and thigh were read as evidence of a violent struggle and an act of overpowering the deceased before she was killed.

Hostile Witnesses and the FIR

Nine witnesses of fact were examined as PW-1 to PW-9. None of them were eye-witnesses to the killing. Several were blood relatives of the deceased. The bench recorded with concern that a large number of these witnesses turned hostile in the dock, failing to support facts they had earlier conveyed to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The most pointed instance was PW-1, Kishan Babu, the first informant himself. At trial, he disowned the contents of the FIR, claiming that men from his village had an application typed out and obtained his signatures without reading the contents to him. The bench did not accept this explanation. The FIR was lodged two days after the occurrence, by which time the inquest and autopsy had already been completed. This was not a situation of immediate post-traumatic distress where someone else might have scripted a document. The bench found it impossible to believe that in the 48 hours between the incident and the registration of the FIR, the informant's mind did not accompany his signatures. The FIR — though not substantive evidence — was treated as the earliest account of the occurrence carrying independent evidentiary value, and the act of nominating the three appellants as perpetrators within two days of the death was treated as a significant circumstance.

The bench also noted a procedural irregularity by the Police: investigation had commenced, the inquest was held, and the autopsy conducted all before the FIR was formally registered. The inquest was further held at the mortuary rather than at the place where the body was found, namely the matrimonial home. The bench observed that where a dead body is found at a known location with a clear context, inquest should ordinarily be held at that location and only after a prompt FIR. These lapses were noted but treated as not fatal to the prosecution's case.

Applying the Law on Circumstantial Evidence and Section 106

The bench set out the five conditions required to establish guilt through circumstantial evidence, drawing on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, referred to as the “panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” Each circumstance must be fully established; the facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature; they must exclude every other possible hypothesis; and the chain must leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.

On the role of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the bench drew on the Supreme Court's analysis in Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) 16 SCC 575, and the line of authorities running through Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 and State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382. The principle applied was that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, but once the prosecution has established circumstances from which a reasonable inference of guilt arises, facts especially within the accused's knowledge must be explained by them. Where an offence is committed in the secrecy of a dwelling, the burden on the prosecution is of a comparatively lighter character; the inmates of the house cannot simply remain silent on the footing that the entire burden rests on the prosecution.

The bench identified and analysed each circumstance that appeared against the appellants. First, Preeti was the wife of Sudhakar and the daughter-in-law of Gauri Shankar and Munni Devi, and she died a violent and unnatural death while staying with them in the matrimonial household. Second, the FIR, though subsequently disowned by its author, nominated all three appellants as perpetrators within two days of the death and was found to be the earliest dependable account of the occurrence. Third, the cause of death was established medically to be asphyxia due to strangulation, with six additional ante-mortem contusion injuries indicating a violent struggle. Fourth, the claim of some unnamed miscreants having entered the house to murder Preeti was rejected as unbelievable: there was no evidence of any robbery or dacoity, and none of the other inmates had suffered any injury, which would be inexplicable if outside intruders had attacked the house. Fifth, it was the deceased's father — not her husband, not her father-in-law, not any member of her matrimonial family — who contacted the Police and eventually caused an FIR to be lodged. No member of the appellants' family ever reported the matter to the Police.

Taking these circumstances together, the bench held that the stage had been reached where the appellants were obliged to disclose facts especially within their knowledge about how the deceased met her death in their own home. The appellants' statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. offered no explanation whatsoever for the injuries or the cause of death. The bench described this absence of explanation as “the clincher or the last link in the chain of evidence,” and held that the circumstances in their totality led to the inescapable conclusion that it was the appellants who committed the murder.

Outcome

Both criminal appeals were dismissed. The conviction of all three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, as passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Etawah by judgment dated 22 July 2017, were confirmed.

Gauri Shankar and Smt. Munni Devi, who were on bail at the time of the High Court judgment, were directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah to serve their sentences. In the event of non-surrender, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to take coercive steps to secure their presence and commit them to prison. Sudhakar was already in judicial custody, and the order was directed to be communicated to him through the Jail Superintendent via the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to transmit the judgment to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, and the lower court records were ordered to be returned.