The Allahabad High Court has overturned the death sentence of a mother and the life imprisonment of her brother-in-law in connection with the drowning deaths of three children in Auraiya, ruling that the prosecution built its case on the compromised testimony of an eight-year-old child and substantial investigative omissions.
Delivering the judgment on September 22, a division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the guilty verdicts handed down by the trial court. Applying the legal rule of caution, the bench extended the benefit of the doubt to both individuals and directed authorities to release them immediately, provided they are not detained in connection with any other proceedings.
Flaws in Surviving Child’s Deposition
The acquittals turned on the testimony of the surviving eldest son, whom prosecutors had positioned as their primary eyewitness. The high court ruled that relying solely on the boy’s statements was impermissible because his narrative was uncorroborated, rife with contradictions, and showed unmistakable signs of outside coaching.
The bench stressed that young witnesses are exceptionally prone to suggestion and can readily be influenced into reciting predetermined narratives by adult relatives, village figures, or law enforcement officers. Consequently, the judges noted, such depositions demand heightened scrutiny.
In assessing the boy’s statements, the court observed that the narration appeared unnaturally constructed, completely lacking the emotional spontaneity expected from an eight-year-old recounting the traumatic deaths of his brothers at the hands of his mother. The judges reiterated settled legal doctrine, stating that when the core of a child witness’s deposition is undermined by coaching and inconsistency, the entire oral testimony must be dismissed as unreliable.
Critical Investigative Lapses and Missing Witnesses
The criminal proceedings originated on June 27, 2024, when the bodies of three children were recovered from a river in Auraiya. According to the prosecution, the woman and the younger brother of her husband brought her four sons to the riverbank and attempted to drown them. The eight-year-old reportedly survived the ordeal by pretending to be dead before notifying local officials.
However, the high court determined that the state had failed to establish guilt, citing an inability to present primary evidence, an untrustworthy deposition from the initial informant, and procedural failures during the inquiry.
A decisive shortcoming identified by the court was the prosecution’s decision not to summon the village pradhan to testify. Because the official police investigation was initiated on the basis of an application filed by the village head, the bench deemed his presence in court essential to clarify how the incident first came to light and was reported. The bench concluded that bypassing this pivotal witness created an unbridgeable gap in the case, leaving the charges unproven.
