The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a woman who was sentenced to death for the murder of her three young children, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the eight-year-old surviving child witness showed “clear hallmarks of tutoring”.
A Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay Tuesday set aside the conviction and sentences of Priyanka and Ashish alias Daini, the younger brother of her deceased husband and her alleged partner. While a trial court had sentenced Priyanka to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Ashish had been awarded life imprisonment. The High Court ordered their immediate release unless they were required in any other case.
Three children found dead
The case arose from the deaths of Priyanka’s three children — Madhav alias Gunga, 6, Aditya alias Tilla, 5, and Mangal, 4 — whose bodies were recovered from the Sengur river in Auraiya district on June 27, 2024.
According to the prosecution, Priyanka had taken her four sons to a bridge over the river at around 5 am. It was alleged that she and Ashish attempted to drown the children because they wanted to continue their relationship without them. Three children died, while the eldest, Sonu, survived.
The prosecution’s case rested substantially on the account attributed to Sonu, who was eight years old at the time. According to his testimony, a gram pradhan took him home after the incident, following which he narrated what had happened. The pradhan then informed the police.
Sonu also told the court that Manish, the first informant in the case, was his uncle and that he had narrated the incident to him, after which the FIR was lodged.
Contradictions in accounts
The High Court, however, found significant inconsistencies between the child’s testimony and the account given by Manish.
Manish told the court that information about the deaths had been conveyed to police by the gram pradhan and that he himself had received information about the incident from there. Contrary to the child’s version, he said he had not learnt about the incident from Sonu.
The first informant also stated that he did not know the name of the person who had informed him about what had happened.
These discrepancies assumed significance because the prosecution’s case depended heavily on the surviving child’s account to establish how the three children died and to connect both appellants with the alleged murders.
After examining the evidence, the Bench concluded that the child witness’s testimony contained “irreconcilable contradictions” and displayed “clear hallmarks of tutoring”. The court found it unsafe to sustain the convictions on the basis of such evidence.
Prosecution failed to prove guilt
The High Court stressed that the prosecution was required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, a standard that assumes even greater significance when a person has been sentenced to death.
The Bench found that the evidence placed before it did not establish an unbroken and reliable chain sufficient to sustain the findings of guilt returned by the trial court.
The judges consequently allowed the appeals filed by Priyanka and Ashish and set aside the trial court judgment convicting them.
The order means Priyanka’s death sentence and Ashish’s life imprisonment no longer survive. Both have been acquitted of the charges and directed to be released immediately, provided they are not wanted in connection with any other case.
The judgment also underscores the safeguards courts are required to apply while evaluating testimony from child witnesses. Such testimony is legally admissible and can form the basis of a conviction, but courts must assess whether the child understood the questions, gave a reliable account and was free from tutoring or external influence.
In the Auraiya case, the High Court ultimately concluded that the contradictions surrounding the surviving child’s account created reasonable doubt and that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of either appellant to the standard required in a criminal trial.