Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 431

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, 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.

Double strangulation murder on circumstantial evidence: unbroken chain (motive-honour killing via pregnancy, presence via calls, failed alibi, no S.106 explanation) rules out suicide absent contrivance; conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 106 - Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 313 - Circumstantial evidence case of double murder by strangulation - Motive proved from discovery of minor female deceased's advanced pregnancy outside wedlock attributed to male deceased tenant - Late night phone calls by one accused identifying self and making male deceased speak, establishing presence at scene - Deaths homicidal ante-mortem strangulation; suicidal strangulation rare and requires contrivance to maintain ligature pressure, absent here - No signs of struggle but fractured tracheal rings/hyoid; heavy build of male deceased irrelevant - Alibi of absence rejected: phone records, lack of travel documents disprove; female accused's sleep on upper floor implausible - Failure to explain homicides in premises within special knowledge invokes Section 106 - Extrajudicial confessions by female accused while in police custody inadmissible under Section 26 - Unbroken chain consistent only with guilt. (Paras 14-76)

Facts of the case:
Male deceased rented room in accused couple's house, allegedly had illicit relations with their minor daughter leading to 25-week pregnancy confirmed same day. Late night calls to his brother reporting impregnation accusation; both found strangled next morning in anteroom of accused's premises. Accused claimed alibi (male away selling livestock, female asleep upstairs) and suicide.

Findings of Court:
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC upheld; life imprisonment and fine confirmed as minimum condign sentence.

Issues: Whether deaths homicidal or suicidal; completeness of circumstantial chain; proof of accused presence/motive; alibi validity; explanation obligation; confession admissibility.

Ratio Decidendi: Strangulation generally homicidal, suicidal uncommon without contrivance (Modi treatise); circumstantial evidence requires unbroken chain excluding innocence hypothesis; Section 106 shifts burden for facts in accused special knowledge like house crimes; phone CDR proves presence falsifying alibi; honour killing motive from societal reaction to premarital pregnancy. Result : Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. fir details victim's murder and pregnancy motive. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history and prosecution evidence listed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. strong motive from honor killing pregnancy. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. desperate phone calls prove accused presence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
5. strangulation homicidal absent suicide contrivance. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. section 106 burden on accused for house crime. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
7. alibi rejected; accused present at crime. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
8. call records disprove alibi; presence established. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
9. confession inadmissible under section 26 evidence act. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
10. unbroken circumstantial chain proves guilt. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
11. appeals dismissed; conviction under 302/34 upheld. (Para 77 , 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