# Smt. Seema Gupta v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-11
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-seema-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-54241
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,773 of 72,742. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39773 for what follows._

2 All. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
279
and it is to be specifically pleaded and proved but certainly it raises serious doubt about the
prosecution case.

(44) The prosecution has also failed to produce the best witnesses to prove the demand of
dowry and harassment on account thereof and death of deceased, therefore, it appears that the plea
was taken by P.W.-1 that the parents of the deceased and the complainant are not alive, whereas
according to evidence of P.W.-2, they were alive. The testimony of such a person, who only to get
his brother-in-law convicted by taking a plea of death of his parents, creates serious doubts about
his testimony and it appears that they and the Kamlesh, the eye witness have been withheld so that
the correct thing or picture may not come before the Court. This Court is of the view that evidence
of such a witness could not be accepted, unless it is corroborated by the other evidence and material
on record because if a person can state in his evidence on oath that his parents are not alive then he
can do anything.

(45) This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that on the basis of same prosecution
evidence, all the accused, except the appellant, have been acquitted on one or other ground, as their
presence has not been found at the place of incident and the fact that an eye witness i.e. uncle of the
complainant, Kamlesh has not been produced in evidence and, admittedly, he had not returned to
the place of incident after the incident, it creates serious doubt on prosecution story. Thus, this
Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt but
the learned Trial Court even after finding contradictions in ocular evidence account and falsehood
in evidence of complainant convicted the appellant, discarding it on probabilities and assumption.

(46) The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
27.03.2012, convicting and sentencing the appellant, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted.
The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

(47) Let a copy of this judgment as well as Trial Court's record be sent to the Court concerned
forthwith and in any case within a week from today for information and compliance.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 279
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2021 and Jail Appeal No. 63 of 2021

Smt. Seema Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Matter pertains to "whether the inculpatory circumstances urged by the prosecution form that unbroken chain,
which leads to no other conclusion, but the appellants' guilt" and "whether the victims died by homicide or
suicide." (Para 14, 25)

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 read with S. 34 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Homicidal
vs. Suicidal strangulation - Motive - Honour killing - Daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock -
Burden of proof under S. 106 of the Evidence Act.
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - "the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence if
these form that unbroken chain beyond all reasonable doubt." (Para 14)
Motive - Illicit Relationship & Pregnancy - "daughter entered into carnal relations pregnancy
outside wedlock serves as a motive." (Paras 16, 20-21)
Homicidal Death vs Suicide - Strangulation - "strangulation is mostly consistent with a case of
homicide and suicidal strangulation is rare." (Para 36)
Absence of Contrivance - Suicidal Strangulation Ruled Out - "no such contrivance was found
rules out suicide by self-strangulation." (Paras 36-37)
Place of Occurrence - Inside Accused's Premises - "dead bodies were lying inside a room located
on the appellants' premises." (Para 44)
Burden under S. 106 Evidence Act - "burden would lie upon the appellants to explain the
circumstances within their special knowledge." (Para 45)
Alibi-Failure - "alibi has to be strictly proved does not inspire confidence." (Para 59)
Extra-Judicial Confession - Inadmissible - "confessions while in police custody inadmissible
under S. 26 Evidence Act." (Paras 66-69)
Chain of Circumstances Complete - "complete and unbroken chain only consistent with the
guilt." (Para 76)
Held: This is a commonplace homicidal death by strangulation and certainly not suicidal strangulation -
burden under S. 106 lies upon the appellants to explain homicidal death - failure to explain would add a link
pointing to the appellants' guilt - the alibi does not inspire confidence failure becomes a further damning
circumstance - appellants having failed to come up with a cogent explanation serves as an important link -
circumstances proved establish a complete and unbroken chain only consistent with the guilt - Conviction
under S. 302/34 IPC rightfully convicted appeals fail and are dismissed. (Paras 38,45,46,59,61,76,78) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala Mishra, (1996) 11 SCC 264; Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of
Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604; Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 10 SCC 437.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
circumstantial evidence; illicit relations; pregnancy outside wedlock; strangulation; homicidal death; suicidal
strangulation; motive; alibi; S. 106; extrajudicial confession; unbroken chain; beyond reasonable doubt;
Honour killing; Ligature mark; Asphyxia.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Judgment and order dated 18.02.2020 Sessions Trial No.519 of 2014 convicting
the appellants under S. 302/34 IPC.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned Counsel for the appellants
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
2 All. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
281
(Delivered by Hon'ble 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 account of the illicit relations. The informant also reported that Mukesh owed his brother a sum
of about Rs.1 lac. This too, according to the informant, was the reason for Mukesh to murder his
brother and his own daughter.

3. On the basis of the said information, an FIR was lodged on 20.08.2014 at 12.30 p.m., giving
rise to Case Crime No.429 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kalan, District
Shahjahanpur. The Police commenced investigation. They held inquests regarding Pradeep
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kumar's unnatural death as well as that of 'X' on 20.08.2014. The inquest on Pradeep's cadaver
commenced at 1.15 p.m. ending 2.25 p.m., whereas 'X's inquest commenced at 2.30 p.m. ending at
3.30 p.m. The dead bodies were then sent for autopsy. Pradeep Kumar's autopsy report dated
21.08.2014 opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. 'X's
autopsy report, also dated 21.08.2014, shows the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation.

4. There is on record a report from Verma Clinic and Maternity Home, Railway Station Road,
Civil Lines, Budaun dated 19.08.2014, marked Ex. Ka-2, relating to 'X', which shows her to be in
the family way.

5. The Police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet on 17.09.2014 against Mukesh Gupta
and Smt. Seema Gupta, his wife, charging them of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the appellants. They
appeared before the Court, whereupon the learned Magistrate furnished them copies of the relevant
prosecution papers as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions, where it came up before the learned Sessions Judge for framing
of charges.

7. The learned Sessions Judge vide order 19.11.2014 jointly charged Mukesh Gupta and
Seema Gupta of sharing a common intention, and in furtherance thereof, murdering the informant's
brother Pradeep Kumar and their daughter 'X' by throttling the two to death. They were charged
with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellants pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution produced the following witnesses in support of their case:

1. PW-1 - Brajesh Kumar, the first informant and brother of the deceased Pradeep Kumar,

2. PW-2 - Siyarani, mother of the deceased Pradeep Kumar,

3. PW-3 - Narendra Kumar, one of the men, who accompanied the informant from
Bilhaur, Kanpur Nagar,

4. PW-4 - Rakesh, another man, who had accompanied the informant from Bilhaur,
Kanpur Nagar,

5. PW-5 - Dr. Smt. Manju Verma, the doctor from Badaun, who had examined 'X', done
an ultrasound of the abdomen and opined her pregnant,

6. PW-6 - Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, who had done autopsy on the cadavers of
Pradeep and 'X',

7. PW-7 - SI Prem Chandra Sharma, then a Head Moharrir posted at P.S. Kalan, District
Shahjahanpur, who had registered the check FIR and made the necessary G.D. Entries,

8. PW-8 - Retired SI Ranveer Singh, then a Sub-Inspector posted at P.S. Kalan, District
Shahjahanpur, who held inquests of the dead bodies, and,

9. PW-9 - Sher Singh Tomar, the then Station House Officer, P.S. Kalan, District
Shahjahanpur and the Investigating Officer of the crime.
2 All. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
283

9. The following documentary evidence and materials were produced by the prosecution to
establish their case:

Sr.
No.

Exhibit No.

Exhibited documents with brief particulars

1.
Ex. Ka-1

Written report dated 20.08.2014 lodged with the Police Station Kalan, District Shahjahanpur, proved by
PW-1, Brajesh Kumar
2.
Ex. Ka-2
Ultrasound (Obstetric) report dated 19.08.2014, proved by PW-5, Dr. Smt. Manju Verma
3.
Ex. Ka-3

Postmortem Report of the deceased Pradeep Kumar, dated 21.08.2014, proved by PW-6, Dr. Manoj
Kumar Srivastava
4.
Ex. Ka-4

Postmortem Report of the deceased 'X', dated 21.08.2014, proved by PW-6, Dr. Manoj Kumar
Srivastava
5.
Ex. Ka-5
Check FIR dated 20.08.2014, proved by PW-7, SI Prem Chandra Sharma
6.
Ex. Ka-6
Carbon Copy of GD Entry No.29, proved by PW-7, SI Prem Chandra Sharma
7.
Ex. Ka-7

Inquest report of Pradeep Kumar dated 20.08.2014, proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
8.
Ex. Ka-8

Letter to CMO regarding Pradeep Kumar dated 20.08.2014, proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
9.
Ex. Ka-9

Challan Lash (Police Form No.13) of Pradeep Kumar, proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
10.
Ex. Ka-10
Photo Lash of Pradeep Kumar, proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
11.
Ex. Ka-11
Inquest report of 'X' dated 20.08.2014, proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
12.
Ex. Ka-12

Letter to CMO regarding 'X' dated 20.08.2014, proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
13.
Ex. Ka-13
Challan Lash (Police Form No.13) of 'X', proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
14.
Ex. Ka-14
Photo Lash of 'X', proved by PW-8, Retd. SI Ranveer Singh
15.
Ex. Ka-15

Site Plan of the place of occurrence, proved by PW-9, Sher Singh Tomar, then posted as SO at P.S.
Kalan, District Shahjahanpur
16.
Ex. Ka-16

Recovery memo of the mobile, Nokia Make dated 09.09.2014, proved by PW-9, Sher Singh Tomar, then
posted as SO at P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur
17.
Ex. Ka-17

Charge sheet dated 17.09.2014, proved by PW-9, Sher Singh Tomar, then posted as SO at P.S. Kalan,
District Shahjahanpur
18.
Ex. Ka-18 to 27

Call detail relating to Mobile No. 8853630754, proved by PW-9, Sher Singh Tomar, then posted as SO
at P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur
19.
Material Ex. 1
Mobile, Nokia Make
20.
Material Ex. 2
Clothe by which the mobile was sealed

10. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

11. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2020 has convicted and sentenced
the appellants in the terms already indicated.

12. Aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No.1502 of 2021 has been instituted by Smt. Seema Gupta
whereas Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021 has been preferred by Mukesh Gupta. Both the appeals have
been heard together and proposed to be decided by this common judgment and order.

13. Heard Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned Counsel for the appellants in support of the present
appeal and the connected Jail Appeal and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate on behalf of the State.
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the occurrence. We
would, therefore, proceed to consider the inculpatory circumstances urged by the prosecution and
find out if these form that unbroken chain, which leads to no other conclusion, but the appellants'
guilt. On the other, we would consider the circumstances emphasized on behalf of the appellants in
order to determine, if upon a realistic consideration of the prosecution case as a whole pitted
against the appellants' evidence, a legitimate and probable doubt can be inferred about the
prosecution story, so as to entitle the appellants to the benefit of it. It need not be gainsaid that the
prosecution have to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. The foremost is the motive that could have driven the appellants to take the life of their
own daughter. Iconoclasts apart, the affinity of blood between the parents and a child would make
the parents the most unlikely suspect in a child's murder. If not unique or rare, a very different kind
of motive, is required for a sane and prudent person to deprive his/ her own child of the priceless
thing called life. Nevertheless, there are some persons with deviant behaviour who could take such
an unusual step and commit a crime of this kind, where another would never. More than that, there
could be very prudent persons in the society who could take their child's life if confronted with
certain kinds of circumstances that drive them counter to their ordinary instincts.

16. The evidence in this case suggests that the appellants' minor daughter, a girl of 15 years,
entered into carnal relations with Pradeep Kumar, a matured man of 28 years. He stayed in the
appellants' house as a tenant and earned his livelihood by privately coaching students, besides
working as a teacher with the Srinagar Inter College. The carnal relationship between Pradeep and
'X' led the latter to conceive and the pregnancy had advanced. There is on record an ultrasound
(obstetric) report dated 19.08.2014 proved by Dr. Manju Verma, Ex. Ka-2, which shows that on
19.08.2014, when the said report was scripted, 'X' was pregnant with a single live intrauterine
foetus of 25 weeks. Dr. Manju Verma appeared in the witness-box as PW-5 and proved the
aforesaid report. It is, thus, clearly established that the appellants' daughter, who was admittedly
unmarried, was pregnant outside wedlock.

17. The fact of her pregnancy is further established upon a perusal of the autopsy report, Ex.
Ka-4, dated 21.08.2014, which reports a gravid uterus. The autopsy report estimates the time of
death as about one and a half day. The report being dated 21.08.2014, the date of death clearly
works out to 19.08.2014, when Dr. Manju Verma's report, finding her pregnant, came into
existence. According to the first informant, on 19.08.2014 at 11.38 p.m., he had received a phone
call on his cellphone, where Mukesh Gupta, the appellant and 'X's father, called up the informant to
say that the informant's brother had illicit relations with his daughter. He had impregnated her.
Mukesh Gupta then put the informant's brother, Pradeep, on line, who said that Mukesh Gupta
owed him a sum of Rs.1 lac and was falsely charging him of impregnating his daughter.

18. The informant also said in the FIR that his brother sounded very scared. The informant's
family and acquaintances, all left for Barah Kalan, where the appellants lived, but later he received
a phone call from a certain Ramveer Singh Yadav, saying that his brother Pradeep and 'X' had been
murdered. This caller said that the appellants had tied nooses around Pradeep's and 'X's neck and
done both of them to death. Upon arrival at the appellants' place, the informant found the dead
bodies of his brother Pradeep and 'X' inside a room, part of Mukesh's house.
2 All. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
285

19. Testifying as PW-1, he has supported the first information version about receiving a phone
call from the appellant Mukesh Gupta about his brother's illicit relations with his daughter,
resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. The deceased was also put on line to speak to the informant,
who said things about himself as reported in the FIR. In the examination-in-chief, these statements
find place and also the fact that the informant's family left for Mukesh Gupta's place along with
their relatives and associates at 7 o'clock in the morning of 20.08.2014, a fact which figures in the
cross-examination of PW-1. It is then said in the examination-in-chief that later on the informant
received a call from Master Ramveer Singh Yadav that his brother Pradeep and 'X' have been
murdered. It was upon reaching Gupta's place that he went to his brother's room, where he found
the dead bodies-both his brother's and 'X's. Mukesh was not to be found, but his wife was there,
who is said to have told the informant that his brother had impregnated her daughter outside
wedlock. It is also said in the informant's testimony that Mukesh's wife, that is to say, Smt. Seema
Gupta, was shouting a confession that it is for this reason that she killed both of them.

20. The above evidence makes it pellucid that the appellants' daughter was believed by them to
have been into an illicit relationship with the informant's brother, Pradeep, which resulted in her
becoming pregnant outside wedlock. This fact was apparently believed to be true by both the
appellants. As the unfolding of events would show the fact that 'X' was in the family way, the
discovery on the 19th of August, 2014 apparently came as a big shock for the appellants going by
the values of the society, of which they are a part. The appellants' reaction, which the informant has
reported and the homicidal death of the two victims the same day that 'X's pregnancy was reported
by the doctor, if indeed the appellants murdered the two victims, clearly serves as a motive for
them to undertake the evil deed.

21. We must take judicial notice of the fact that since times of yore until contemporary ones, a
daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a nightmare. It always invites
uncontrollable reactions from parents, mostly violent, either for themselves or the daughter or the
wrongdoer or both of them. The embarrassment would be there generally amongst any class of
persons, but those refined by education might react in a different way, where notwithstanding
disapproval, rapprochement etc., violence may or may not be there. Some might work towards
avoiding the embarrassment devising some ways and means, legal or illegal. The appellants
represent the ordinary and average cross-section of the Indian society, where extreme reactions to
the situation are commonplace. Therefore, we are of opinion that the appellants had motive to
commit the crime charged. The forceful submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, Ms.
Sweta Singh Rana, that there was no motive established by the prosecution against the appellants,
cannot be countenanced.

22. The next circumstance to be considered is the fact that in the late night hours of 19th
August, 2014 at 11.38 p.m., the informant received a phone call on his cellphone number
9621820180 from cellphone number 8853630754. The caller identified himself as the appellant
Mukesh Gupta from Barah Kalan and abruptly reported the fact to the informant that the latter's
brother Pradeep Kumar was into an illicit relationship with Mukesh's daughter. He also said that
Pradeep had impregnated his daughter. This circumstance shows that soon after the discovery of his
daughter's pregnancy, the appellant Mukesh Gupta was desperate and called the deceased Pradeep's
brother, the informant, over his cellphone late in the night. Apparently, as evidence would show,
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the two were not known to each other and much less on terms where one would call the other
during late night hours. The subject of the phone call and the hour it was made, speaks of
desperation that the appellant Mukesh Gupta experienced. Dovetailed into the above circumstance
is the fact that the appellant Mukesh Gupta made the informant's brother speak to him over
cellphone.

23. The telephonic conversation between the informant and his brother did reveal that Pradeep
was facing an allegation of impregnating Mukesh's daughter by the latter and his wife, the other
appellant Seema Gupta, and he sounded scared. The phone call that the informant received from
Mukesh was followed by another two, which must have been later in the night. The informant
made Mukesh speak to his own mother. There also, the subject matter was about his daughter's
pregnancy. These facts find mention in the testimony of PW-1 (examination-in-chief) and that of
his mother Smt. Siyarani, PW-2. As part of this circumstance is the fact that when the informant
along with his family and associates reached Barah Kalan, the next day at 11.00 a.m., he found his
brother and 'X' dead in a room, located inside the appellants' house, both strangulated.

24. The learned Counsel for the appellants has endeavoured to show that the communication
over cellphone about his brother's death at 6.00 a.m. in the morning from Ramveer Singh Yadav
before he reached Barah Kalan or even left for that destination, is incorrect about the timing, which
would be proved from the cellphone record. She has invited our attention to Ex. Ka-21 in this
connection, where the informant received a call from Ramveer Singh Yadav at 10.38 a.m. and not
6.00 a.m. on 20.08.2014. The timing of the phone call reporting the murder is not at all material,
even if there is some discrepancy about it. What is material is the circumstance that the appellant
Mukesh Gupta was very agitated in the evening of 19.08.2014 upon discovery of his daughter's
pregnancy. He blamed it upon the deceased, which made him call the informant late at night on
19.08.2014, and, again still later in the night once again. These together with the fact that the
victims were murdered sometimes between the late night hours on 19.08.2014 and the morning
hours on 20.08.2014 before 11.00 a.m., and their bodies were found in a room, located inside the
appellants' premises, make the picture inculpatory.

25. If the deaths were homicidal or suicidal, is the next moot question. The prosecution say
that the deaths were homicidal, pointing an unerring finger towards the appellants, whereas the
appellants say that the two victims died by suicide. The relevant fact here is whether the victims
died by homicide or suicide. If they died by suicide, there would be no culpability for the
appellants. However, if they died as a result of homicide, it would add to the chain of
circumstances appearing against the appellants.

26. The learned A.G.A. has argued forcefully that not only the victims were murdered, but it is
a case of honour killing, where the appellants eliminated the two, outraged over the illicit
relationship between their daughter and the informant's brother, which would disgrace them in
society.

27. In order to determine whether the deaths were suicidal or homicidal, the nature of injuries
as evidenced by the autopsy and the surrounding circumstances have to be evaluated.
2 All. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
287

28. The autopsy report relating to the deceased Pradeep, Ex. Ka-3, notices the following antemortem injury(s):

(1) A Ligature mark - 40cm x 3.0cm all around the neck continuous encircling
horizontally and completely, Ligature mark is situated below thyroid cartilage 6.0cm below Rt.
mastoid process & 7.0cm below chin and 6.0cm below left mastoid process, the bone of the groove
reddish with echhymosed margin on section subcutaneous tissue mid the ligature mark is
echhymosed.

29. The cause of death opined is 'asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation'. Though
the hyoid bone has not been found fractured, but the tracheal rings are fractured.

30. The autopsy report relating to the deceased 'X', Ex. Ka-4, reports the following antemortem injury(s):

(1) A Ligature mark - 30.0cm x 4.0cm all around the neck continuous encircling
horizontally and completely, Ligature mark is situated below thyroid cartilage 6.5cm below chin
5.5cm below Rt. mastoid process 5.6cm below Lt. mastoid process. The base of groove reddish
with echhymosed margin on section subcutaneous tissue under the ligature mark is echhymosed.

31. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The tracheal rings and
hyoid bone both were found fractured.

32. The autopsy doctor, Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, PW-6, who entered the witness-box to
prove the postmortem reports, after a description of the injuries and whatever he found during
autopsy in his examination-in-chief, has said in his cross-examination that he did not find any other
external injury or abrasion, except the ligature mark on the cadavers. There was no sign of struggle.
According to the autopsy report, it could be a case of suicide because there was no sign of struggle.
Ex. Ka-4 does not mention any external injury. The deceased 'X' could have died by suicide. It is
possible, according to the autopsy doctor, that both the deceased died by suicide.

33. The learned Counsel for the appellants has harped much on the testimony of the autopsy
doctor as well as the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 to submit that no injuries were found on the dead
bodies. She has invited our attention to the testimony of PW-3, where in his cross-examination, this
witness, Narendra Kumar, has said:

"लाश को मैंने िेखा था लेककन उस पर कोई चोि नहीां थी।"

34. The learned Counsel for the appellants has also emphasized that the autopsy doctor has
observed that the deceased Pradeep Kumar was a well built man with a heavy body structure. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants with great force that the lack of any other
injury, except the ligature mark that resulted in deaths, shows that the deceased, particularly
Pradeep, died without struggle. This in turn, according to the learned Counsel, would decisively
indicate that there was no altercation, employment of force or struggle, which is characteristic of a
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
murder by strangulation. The absence of no other injury, except the fatal wound, indicates that the
death was suicidal. To a pointed query by us that strangulation was incompatible with a case of
suicide and that it was suggestive of homicide, the learned Counsel for the appellants impressed
upon us the fact that medical jurisprudence recognized cases, where suicide could be committed by
strangulation. She has relied upon the celebrated treaties on medical jurisprudence, entitled 'A
Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' by Jaising P Modi, Twenty Seventh
Edition. She has invited our attention to the tabulated differences between telltale signs of death by
hanging on one hand and strangulation, on the other, mentioned in Chapter 20-'Deaths from
Asphyxia' at Pages 586 and 587. She has referred to the first item in the table, which says that
hanging is mostly suicidal, whereas strangulation is mostly homicidal. The learned Counsel for the
appellants urges that this comparison of difference shows that strangulation is not always consistent
with a case of homicide. There could be suicidal strangulation as well. In order to further impress
upon us the aforesaid fact, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the following passage in
Modi at Page No.585:

"20.3.6.2 Whether the Strangulation was Suicidal, Homicidal or Accidental

Suicidal strangulation is not very common, though sometimes cases are met with. In these
cases, some contrivance is always made to keep the ligature tight after insensibility supervenes.
This is done by twisting a cord several times round the neck and then tying a knot, which is usually
single and in front or at the side or back of the neck, by twisting a cord tightly by means of a stick,
stone or some other solid material, or by tightening the ends of a cord by tying them to the hands or
feet or to a peg in a wall or to the leg of bed. In such cases, injuries to the deep structures of the
neck and marks of violence on other parts of the body are, as a rule, absent."

35. The learned A.G.A, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no doubt about the fact
that the deceased died by strangulation, which, under the overall circumstances, is consistent with
homicide; not suicide.

36. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the matter. Medico-legal opinion generally
accepts the position that strangulation is mostly consistent with a case of homicide and suicidal
strangulation is rare. The exposition in Modi, relied upon eloquently, accepts it for a fact that
suicidal strangulation is uncommon. In cases where suicidal strangulation may have happened,
Modi acknowledges that some contrivance is always employed to keep the ligature tight until time
that consciousness is lost and life ebbs away. Modi has clearly opined that, "This is done by
twisting a cord several times round the neck and then tying a knot, which is usually single and in
front or at the side or back of the neck, by twisting a cord tightly by means of a stick, stone or some
other solid material, or by tightening the ends of a cord by tying them to the hands or feet or to a
peg in a wall or to the leg of bed". These are the contrivances that must be employed in order to
keep the ligature tight until fatal effect sets in. In this case, no such contrivance was found around
the dead bodies.

37. It is not that there was a cord or a ligature that was attached to a peg or the bedpost in
order to exert constant pressure consistent with a case of self-strangulation, and, a fortiori suicide.
The autopsy doctor, PW-6, has no doubt testified to the fact that there is no other injury or sign of
2 All. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
289
struggle on the dead body. He has opined that going by the autopsy report, it could be a case of
suicide because there was no sign of struggle. He has also opined that in both cases, that is to say,
the cases of Pradeep and 'X', it is possible that deaths were caused by suicide. The testimony of
PW-6 on this point is after all opinion evidence of an expert. Here also, the cross-examination does
not show that it was put to the doctor, based on what Modi has opined, if in the absence of a
contrivance to sustain the fatal pressure through ligatures, it could still possibly be a case of death
by suicide in one or both the cases. Therefore, the doctor's opinion too does not have any decisive
bearing on the point, where any inference about a case of that rare kind, that is self-strangulation,
can be drawn. In this connection, reference may be made to Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala
Mishra and another, (1996) 11 SCC 264, where it was held:

"23. In our view, the case of committing suicide by self-strangulation by the deceased
must be ruled out. Both in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and in Talyor's Principles
and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, to which our attention was drawn by Mr Ranjit Kumar, it
has been clearly indicated that suicide by self-strangulation is very rare. For committing suicide by
self-strangulation, the person committing suicide must take aid of a contrivance so as to ensure
application of sufficient force until death by strangulation. Without such contrivance, sufficient
force cannot be applied because initially with the application of force, insensitivity will develop for
which the hands pulling the ends of the string must get loosened. In the instant case, no contrivance
was noticed either by PW 6 and PW 7 who had come to examine the deceased on hearing the
alarm. The accused has also not seen any contrivance at the place of incident and in her statement
under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, she has not disclosed any fact, which was within her
special knowledge, in support of a case of suicide by self-strangulation.

25. In the instant case, it has been clearly established that the death occurred on account
of strangulation. Simply because the doctor (PW 11) noticed injuries on the deep muscle of the
neck of the deceased at the time of holding post-mortem, it cannot be held that such injuries noticed
by the doctor had convincingly established that it was a case of death by self-strangulation,
because of what has been opined by Modi. We may indicate here that suicide by self-strangulation,
according to the learned author, is a rare incident. Such view has also been expressed in Taylor's
Principle and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence. It is not unlikely that for want of large number of
cases of suicide by strangulation to be studied carefully, various features associated with such
suicide could not be indicated more precisely. That apart, opinions expressed in the said treatise
are, at best, opinions of expert, which though deserve due consideration with respect, cannot be
held absolutely conclusive particularly, when other evidences clearly established give a contraindication.

26. It may also be indicated here that both in Modi's book on medical jurisprudence and
Taylor's book on medical jurisprudence, it has been categorically stated that for committing
suicide by self-strangulation, the aid of a contrivance to maintain force till death is got to be taken,
otherwise, it is not possible to maintain the force required. The absence of such contrivance clearly
rules out any possibility of suicide by self-strangulation. In the aforesaid fact, excepting the
accused no other person had any opportunity whatsoever to cause the murder of the deceased. The
circumstantial evidence in this case are absolutely clinching in establishing the complicity of the
accused in committing the murder of the deceased. The view taken by the High Court is clearly
against the weight of the evidence and cannot be held to be a possible view which could have been
taken."
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

38. We, therefore, hold that this is a commonplace homicidal death by strangulation and
certainly not that uncommon and rare case of suicidal strangulation.

39. The circumstance that the homicides happened in a room, that is part of the appellants'
premises, about which no alternative explanation as to who, besides the appellants, had access or
could have committed homicide, is very relevant in the chain of circumstances.

40. PW-1, Brajesh Kumar, in his examination-in-chief has testified:

".. कफर मैं प्रिीप के कमरे पर आया। मेरे िाई की और 'x೦ की लाश कमरे के अन्िर पडी थी।..."

41. PW-2, Smt. Siyarani, has stated in her examination-in-chief:

".... जि हम लोग मुकेश के मकान पर वीराकलााँ पहुांचे तो मेरा लडका प्रिीप मुकेश के अन्िर घर
के कमरे मे मरा पडा था तथा िूसरी तरफ उसकी लडकी 'x' मरी पडी थी।....."

42. PW-3, Narendra Kumar, has testified in the examination-in-chief about the place, where
the dead bodies have been found, thus:

"..... और 11 िजे िारह कला पहुचे जि हम लोग मुकेश व सीमा के घर पहुांचे तो िेखा प्रिीप मरा
पडा था उसके गले कपडा भलपिा था तथा पडोस के ही सीमा की िेिी 'x' का िी लाश पडी थी उसके गले मे िी
कपडा िांधा था।...."

43. Likewise, PW-4, Rakesh, has stated in his examination-in-chief:

"..... सिी लोग सफेि गाडी से िाराकला को ननकले मै िी था, िाराकला सुिह करीि 10-11 िजे के
िीच मे पहुांचे, मुकेश गुप्ता के मकान मे िहुत िीड थी तथा पुभलस िी मौजूि थी उसके िाि हम लोग मकान
के अन्िर गये तथा एक कमरे मे गले मे फन्िा लगी िो लाश एक प्रिीप की थी तथा िूसरी मुकेश गुप्ता की
लडकी की थी...."

44.