The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, has set aside the conviction and capital punishment awarded to a woman accused of drowning three of her children, alongside the life sentence of her co-accused. Addressing the critical legal issue of the evidentiary value of an uncorroborated child witness and the withholding of material witnesses by the prosecution, the High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench held that the testimony of the eight-year-old child witness suffered from irreconcilable contradictions and bore clear hallmarks of tutoring, while the non-examination of the village Pradhan—who first set the law into motion—compelled an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on June 27, 2024, at around 5:00 AM, where three young children—Madhav alias Gunga (6), Aditya alias Tilla (5), and Mangal (4)—died due to drowning in the Sengur river. The initial information regarding their deaths was conveyed to the Kotwali police station in Auraiya by Gram Pradhan Jitendra Bhushan of Village Talepur at 13:44 hours via General Diary (G.D.) No. 36. Although no First Information Report (FIR) was registered at that stage, police recovered the bodies near the Sengur River bridge and conducted inquest proceedings (panchayatnama) between 13:41 hours and 14:25 hours, followed by post-mortem examinations. None of these initial documents contained a case crime number.
Later that evening, at 18:44 hours, an FIR was lodged by Manish (PW-1), the paternal uncle of the deceased children. He alleged that his sister-in-law, Priyanka, whose husband Avnish had died two years earlier, was in an illicit relationship with her deceased husband’s cousin brother, Ashish alias Daini. According to the FIR, both accused conspired to eliminate her four sons to continue their relationship. It was alleged that Priyanka took the four children to the river to drown them, but the eldest child, Sonu (PW-2), managed to escape and reported the incident to PW-1.
Following investigation, charges were framed under Sections 302, 307, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. By a judgment and order dated July 5/10, 2025, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 3, Auraiya, convicted both Priyanka and Ashish under Sections 302 read with 120-B of the I.P.C., sentencing them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The trial court additionally sentenced Priyanka to death under Section 302 of the I.P.C., ordering her to be hanged by the neck till dead, which resulted in Reference No. 11 of 2025 before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellants, learned Senior Counsel and Amicus Curiae Sri Saghir Ahmad, assisted by Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Sri Rajarshi Gupta, and Ms. Babita Upadhyay, argued that the conviction rested entirely on the fragile and tutored testimony of the eight-year-old child (PW-2). Counsel submitted that the child’s presence at the crime scene was highly doubtful, as the uncle (PW-1) reached the spot around 9:00 AM after learning of the deaths from others, yet the FIR was delayed until 18:44 hours. Furthermore, the child’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was delayed until July 5, 2024, providing ample opportunity for tutoring by his aunt (bua) and uncle (fufa).
The defense also stressed that Gram Pradhan Jitendra Bhushan was never examined in court despite being named in the charge-sheet, withholding the best evidence regarding the genesis of the disclosure. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., counsel urged that an adverse inference must be drawn. It was further asserted that it was completely unnatural for an accused intending to eliminate all witnesses to leave the eldest child alive and unharmed.
Opposing the appeals, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) contended that the case fell squarely within the “rarest of rare” doctrine due to the extreme brutality and merciless nature of drowning three minor children. The State argued that the act shocked the collective conscience of society and proved the appellant-mother to be a menace. The A.G.A. maintained that PW-2 was a credible, consistent eyewitness whose presence at the scene was established, and urged the High Court to uphold the capital sentence.
The Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench undertook a thorough evaluation of the legal standards governing child witnesses under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, the Bench noted:
“Every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the court considers otherwise… it is desirable that Judges and Magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the witness may be seriously affected. so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether.”
The High Court also considered Pradeep v. State of Haryana, Mangoo v. State of M.P., Panchhi v. State of U.P., and State of M.P. v. Ramesh, reiterating that child witnesses are impressionable and prone to coaching. On examining the deposition of PW-2, the Court observed:
“Applying the principles articulated in the aforementioned judicial precedents to the facts of the instant case, this Court finds that the sole testimony of the 8 year-old child witness suffers from irreconcilable contradictions and exhibits clear hallmarks of tutoring, rendering it wholly unsafe to form the sole basis of conviction.”
The Bench pointed out that PW-2 claimed he informed the Pradhan immediately, who took him to the police, yet his statement was recorded only on July 5, 2024. Testing the prosecution narrative under Section 114 of the Evidence Act on the touchstone of human conduct, the Court remarked:
“The prosecution propounds that the appellant-mother executed a cold-blooded killing of her three children aged 4,5 and 6 years, yet spared the 8-year-old child, leaving him unharmed to act as an eyewitness against her. This hypothesis is inherently improbable and unnatural. If an accused mother had indeed succumbed to criminal intent to eliminate her offspring, it defies basic logic and human behaviour that she would spare the eldest child who was fully capable of speaking, observing, and implicating her.”
Examining the testimony of PW-1, the Court observed shifting stances: PW-1 initially admitted learning of the deaths from the village Pradhan, later claimed Priyanka’s aunt informed him, contradicted the Investigating Officer (IO) regarding the site plan preparation, and was not a witness to any of the three panchayatnamas despite claiming presence since morning.
Turning to the non-examination of Gram Pradhan Jitendra Bhushan, the Court referenced Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing regarding the best evidence rule:
“This omission leaves an unbridgeable gap in the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, the Court is bound to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. We must infer that had the Pradhan been produced and subjected to cross-examination, his testimony would not have supported the prosecution narrative, or would have exposed the true genesis of the incident, which might have been entirely different from the version put forward by the police.”
Highlighting glaring defects in the police probe—including conflicting statements regarding the site plan and failing to register an FIR on the Pradhan’s initial written report—the Bench observed:
“The deliberate failure to record the statement of PW-2 on the day of incident itself, even when as per the version of the Pradhan when the police came they took PW-2 to the police station on the day of incident itself, conflicting statement as to on whose pointing out the site plan was prepared, non-lodging of FIR on the application moved by the Pradhan, though a cognizable offence was disclosed and GD entry was also made pursuant to the said application, etc. shakes the root of the prosecution case and creates doubt about its credibility.”
Decision of the Court
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and applying the rule of caution, the High Court allowed Capital Cases Appeal No. 14 of 2025 and Jail Appeal No. 317 of 2025, and answered the death reference accordingly. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 3, Auraiya. Both Priyanka and Ashish alias Daini were honorably acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.
Case Title: Priyanka Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Capital Cases No. – 14 of 2025 With Reference No. 11 of 2025
Bench: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
Date: September 22, 2026
