Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 117

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J.MUNIR, VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Smt. Seema Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2021 Along with Jail Appeal No. 63 of 2021
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent: G.A.

Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in homicide cases, particularly when the accused fail to provide a credible explanation for events that occurred in their vicinity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34 - Homicide - Conviction of parents for murder of their minor daughter and her alleged lover due to societal stigma from an out-of-wedlock pregnancy - Circumstantial evidence affirmed as conclusive, including motive, calls made before deaths, and presence at crime scene - Failure to provide reasonable explanation by accused noted. (Paras 19, 70-76)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Burden of explaining circumstances of a crime rests on the accused when committed in their premises, emphasizing the importance of their alibi. (Paras 46-56)

Facts of the case:
The appellant couple was convicted for murdering their daughter and her lover following allegations of an illicit relationship. Both victims were found dead in the appellants' premises after a series of threatening calls.

Findings of Court:
An unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence established guilt; confessions were ruled inadmissible due to police custody context.

Issues: Core issues centered on the establishment of motive, the character of the evidence, and alibi credibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that lack of explanation from the accused adds to the evidence against them.

Result: Appeals dismissed, sentencing upheld.

Table of Content
1. conviction details and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. proceedings of the case and charge framing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. prosecution's evidence submission. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. hearing of appeals. (Para 12 , 13)
5. motive and circumstantial evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 20)
6. murder investigation details and calls. (Para 16 , 18 , 19)
7. circumstances surrounding the deaths. (Para 21 , 22 , 25)
8. strangulation and cause of death discussion. (Para 33 , 36 , 39)
9. alibi discussions and witness testimonies. (Para 46 , 47 , 56)
10. confessions and their admissibility. (Para 63 , 64 , 68)
11. conclusion and findings from various circumstances. (Para 75 , 76)
12. final orders of the court. (Para 78 , 79 , 80)

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of Mr. Mohd. Quamar, the then Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Shahjahanpur dated 18.02.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.519 of 2014, convicting the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life, besides a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each; and, in default, ordering six months' simple imprisonment.

2. A First Information Report ('FIR' in short) was lodged by Brajesh Kumar with Police Station Kalan, District Shahjahanpur on 20.08.2014, saying that the informant was a resident of Village Mahodavan, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar. His younger brother of full blood, Pradeep Kumar aged about 28 years, who was unmarried, was teaching for the three years past as a private tutor at Barah Kalan, P.S. Kalan. He was employed privately as a teacher with the Srinagar Inter College there. The employment would fetch him Rs.2500/- (presumably per month) and some money he would earn from the coaching he offered to students. Pradeep Kumar lived at Barah Kalan village in a room, he had rented from Mukesh Gupta, part of the latter's house. The informant's mother Smt. Siyarani would also frequent his brother's place. On 19.08.2014 at 11.38 p.m., the informant received a phone call on his mobile number 9621820180 from a mobile phone, bearing number 8853630754. The informant said that Mukesh Gupta had called him from Barah Kalan, who was his brother's landlord, telling him that the informant's brother had done something awful to his daughter. Mukesh Gupta, according to the informant, said that Pradeep had impregnated his daughter outside wedlock and he did not know what to do about it. The caller made Pradeep talk to the informant. The informant's brother told him that his landlord Mukesh Gupta and his wife Seema, accusing him of illicit relations with their daughter ‘X’, had locked him up in a room and intend to do him to death. He wanted to talk to their mother. The informant made their mother Siyarani talk to his brother, who was very panicky. The informant further on says that he and his mother pleaded with Mukesh and wife not to harm Pradeep and that he along with his mother would reach their place by the following morning. According to the informant, the way Mukesh Gupta spoke to him over mobile, made him sense some evil in the offing. Therefore, the informant, besides his mother, also took along Rakesh Katiyar, Narendra Katiyar, Ashok, Vinod, Ishwar Dayal and Pradeep, hiring a vehicle and left for Barah Kalan. The informant received a phone call from one Master Yadav, a colleague of his brother, calling from the latter's mobile number 7525079412, who informed him that his brother Pradeep Katiyar and ‘X’ have both been done to death by Mukesh Gupta and his wife Seema, throttling the two by tightening something around their neck. The informant and his family were deeply saddened and reached Barah Kalan only to find the dead bodies of his brother Pradeep and Mukesh's daughter ‘X’, lying in an anteroom of Mukesh Gupta's shop. The informant said that Mukesh and his wife had done the two to death on