Accused Can Be Punished If Found Guilty Even In Cases Of Circumstantial Evidence: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction Of Father For Daughter's Murder

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of a man who was accused of killing his daughter in the year 2015 by strangling her with a cloth string.

A Criminal Appeal was filed by the accused before the Lucknow Bench, challenging the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) by which he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh reiterated, “… it is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished, if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances, which definitely points towards the involvement of guilt of the accused.”

The Bench added that the accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the case and it is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the expected principles in that regard.

Advocate Anurag Singh Chauhan appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while AGA Rajdeep Singh appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

The Complainant i.e., the Appellant-accused’s wife submitted a written complaint at Police Station. It was stated that her daughter aged about 17 years studying in Class 12, used to talk with a guy who was the resident of her locality. It was further stated that her daughter was pressing for going with the said guy and living with her, in regard to which, her husband (Appellant-accused) had admonished her. Thereafter, the accused allegedly killed her by gagging her neck with cloth string.

It was also stated that upon hearing the noise of her daughter, the Complainant went into the room and found that her husband is gagging her neck, therefore, she asked her husband to leave her, then he ran away from the spot. Subsequently, an FIR was registered and then the trial commenced. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. So until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would apply to cases, where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts, from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the guilt of the accused.”

The Court said that a written complaint, on the basis of which FIR was lodged, has been proved to have been got written by the Complainant by dictating to one Rohit Singh, who proved the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged and the said written complaint was signed by the Complainant and scriber of the complaint, who proved the version written in the complaint, his signature thereon and the signature of the lady, on whose dictation, he had written the complaint.

“The signature thereon have been found to be of the complainant by the learned trial Court also. Thus, the version in the F.I.R. is of the complainant. As per F.I.R., after the deceased i.e. her daughter was killed by the cloth string by the husband of the complainant and on her asking to leave her, he ran away from the spot, then she took her daughter to the District Hospital, where the Doctor declared her dead and the dead body was kept in the hospital. The inquest report indicates that the inquest was made on the information as given by the complainant, who had lodged the F.I.R., in the Mortuary of the District Hospital, where she had informed that the dead body is kept, after she was declared dead”, it noted.

The Court further took note of the fact that the cloth string was recovered on the pointing of the Appellant from the heap of garbage near his house and recovery memo is also signed by the Appellant.

“The site plans prepared by the Investigating Officer also indicate that the room, in which the deceased was killed, was inside the house and the complainant was sleeping outside the room and as per the version of the F.I.R., upon hearing the voice of her daughter; Shivani, the complainant went inside the room, where her husband was killing her daughter by gagging her neck from cloth string and the heap of garbage from where the cloth string was recovered”, it added.

The Court also observed that the recovery stands proved under Section 27 of of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and the inquest and the post mortem and injuries have been proved by the concerned witnesses.

Conclusion

“Thus, all the relevant facts showing killing of the daughter of the appellant by him are proved and, admittedly, he was in the house at the time of death of his daughter, therefore, the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was on him to prove as to how his daughter had died, which he has failed to prove”, it held.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Trial Court rightly and in accordance with law had held that the prosecution proved the offence of Section 302 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him and after affording opportunity of hearing, sentenced him with life imprisonment and fine.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the conviction.

Cause Title- Raju Batham v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:76710-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment