E-Paper
HC upholds life term for man who strangled live-in partner, her mother, two minor children in 2009
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court found that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond doubt and that the prosecution story held a ring of truth.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for strangulating his live-in partner, her mother and her two minor children to death in Hardoi in 2009.
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond doubt and that the prosecution story held a ring of truth.
A division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the judgment on July 27 on an appeal filed by the convict, Vinay Pratap Singh alias Bablu.
The bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Bablu and affirmed the 2014 judgment of the Hardoi trial court, which convicted him under Sections 302, 307 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution’s case, Babita, an anganwadi worker, had moved to her mother’s house after her husband’s death and was residing there with her two children.
The appellant had been living with her in a live-in relationship for about one and a half years before the incident. On the night of June 23- 24, 2009, a quarrel allegedly took place between them.
The next morning, Babita, her mother Nandrani and the two children were found dead inside the house with nooses tied around their necks. Post-mortem reports confirmed that all four had died due to ante-mortem ligature strangulation.
In September 2014, almost five years after the incident, the trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment after considering the evidence available on record.
Challenging this judgment, the appellant moved the high court on the ground that the entire case rested upon circumstantial evidence and there was no direct ocular evidence connecting the accused/appellant with the alleged murder of four persons.
It was also his case that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, that the “last seen” theory was doubtful, and that the alleged recoveries were doubtful. He further argued that the FIR was founded only on suspicion and that he had been falsely implicated due to a property dispute.
Rejecting the submissions of the appellant’s counsel, the high court found that every incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution stood proved.
Holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the oral, documentary and medical evidence, the high court found no perversity or illegality in the conviction or sentence. It accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment awarded to the appellant.
