Back
acquits mother and co-accused in triple murder case over unreliable child evidence
In a significant ruling that underscores the fragility of relying on a single child witness, the has acquitted Priyanka and Ashish @ Daini of murdering three young children. The court overturned a trial court's death sentence for Priyanka and life imprisonment for Ashish, finding the prosecution's case built on a "" and "" child testimony that could not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The case had sent shockwaves through Auraiya district in when three children—Madhav (6), Aditya (5), and Mangal (4)—were found dead in the Sengur River. The prosecution alleged that Priyanka, in conspiracy with her brother-in-law Ashish, had drowned the children to pursue an illicit relationship, sparing only her eldest son, Sonu (then 8), who later became the sole eyewitness.
The Trial and the Appeal
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Auraiya, had convicted both accused under , sentencing Priyanka to death and Ashish to life imprisonment. On appeal, a division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay examined the entire record, focusing on the credibility of the child witness (PW-2) and the failure to examine the village pradhan who first alerted the police.
A Child's Word Under Scrutiny
The High Court meticulously analyzed the law on child witnesses, citing the Constitution Bench decision in
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
(AIR 1952 SC 54) and the cautionary principle in
Pradeep v. State of Haryana
(2023) 19 SCC 221 that trial judges must record preliminary questions to assess a child's capacity. The court noted that while a child may be competent to testify, such evidence must be approached with "
" because children are
"impressionable, imaginative, and highly vulnerable to external suggestions."
Applying these principles, the bench found that PW-2's deposition was riddled with and bore clear hallmarks of tutoring. The child claimed he had informed his uncle Manish (PW-1) about the incident, but Manish testified that he had learned of the deaths from the pradhan, not the child. Moreover, the child's statement was recorded only on —eight days after the incident—raising serious doubts about his presence at the scene and the possibility of coaching by relatives.
"The internal contents of the child's deposition unequivocally demonstrate that the child was an easy prey to tutoring and was swayed by the influence of adult relatives i.e. his bua and fufa,"
the court observed.
"The narrative provided by the child appears artificially structured and lacks the natural spontaneity expected from an 8-year-old child who allegedly witnessed a tragic traumatic incident involving his own mother and siblings."
Natural Conduct Defies Prosecution's Story
The High Court also tested the prosecution's case on the touchstone of human behavior. It found it inherently improbable that a mother who had resolved to kill her children would spare the eldest, who could later implicate her.
"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,"
the judgment noted.
Missing Best Evidence: The Pradhan
The court drew an against the prosecution for failing to examine Jitendra Bhushan, the village pradhan who had given the first written information about the deaths. Relying on Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178 and Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145, the bench held that the pradhan was a whose testimony could have revealed the true genesis of the incident. His non-examination left an "" in the prosecution's case.
"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,"
the court stated.
Investigative Lapses Undermine the Case
The judgment also catalogued fundamental flaws in the investigation: the FIR was lodged at 6:44 p.m. even though the police had reached the spot by 9 a.m.; the
was conducted without any case crime number; and the investigating officer gave
statements about who had pointed out the site. These lapses, the court said, struck
"at the very root of the prosecution's case."
The Final Verdict
Concluding that the prosecution had
"miserably failed to establish the guilt of both the accused-appellants
,"
the High Court allowed both appeals and answered the
accordingly. It set aside the conviction and sentences, directing the immediate release of Priyanka and Ashish @ Daini unless required in any other case.
The court also awarded professional fees of ₹50,000 to senior counsel , who appeared as .
The decision serves as a powerful reminder that even in cases involving the most heinous crimes, the remains on the prosecution, and a conviction cannot rest on a child's word that has been colored by tutoring and contradictions.
