On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court overturned a death sentence previously handed down to Priyanka, a woman accused of murdering her three minor children in June 2024. The trial court had convicted Priyanka, along with her cousin-in-law, Ashish alias Daini, who received a life imprisonment sentence for conspiracy in the same case. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, acquitted the accused after determining that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court ruled that the trial court’s conviction relied heavily on the testimony of a child witness, which was found to be uncorroborated, contradictory, and possibly influenced. The Bench noted investigative lapses and the absence of critical evidence, stating, “The conviction recorded by the learned trial court rests on the statement of an uncorroborated, tutored, and contradictory child witness, coupled with a fatal failure to produce the best available evidence, unreliable deposition of PW-1, and investigative lapses. Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused appellants on the ground of rule of caution.”
The case originated on June 27, 2024, when the bodies of 6-year-old Madhav @ Gunga, 5-year-old Aditya @ Tilla, and 4-year-old Mangal were discovered near a bridge over the Sengur River. The children’s uncle, Manish, filed a complaint alleging that Priyanka and Ashish had taken her four sons to the bridge with the intent to murder them. Sonu, one of the children, managed to escape and provided a statement to the police, implicating his mother in the attempted murder.
During the trial, Sonu’s testimony played a pivotal role in the conviction of the accused. However, upon review, the High Court found the child’s testimony fraught with inconsistencies and signs of tutoring. The Court remarked that it was unsafe to base a conviction solely on this evidence, stating, “The internal contents of the child’s deposition unequivocally demonstrate that the child was an easy prey to tutoring and was swayed by the influence of adult relatives i.e., his bua and fufa. The narrative provided by the child appears artificially structured and lacks the natural spontaneity expected from an 8-year-old child who allegedly witnessed a tragic traumatic incident involving his own mother and siblings.”
The Court also questioned the prosecution’s failure to examine pradhan Jitendra Bhushan, a crucial witness, during the trial. This omission, along with the delay in recording the child’s statement, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. “The examination of the Pradhan was absolutely vital to supply the genesis of the incident and to corroborate how the crime was first disclosed. This omission leaves an unbridgeable gap in the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, the Court is bound to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution,” the Court said.
The appeals filed by the convicts were thus allowed, and the trial court’s ruling was set aside. Senior Advocate Saghir Ahmad served as amicus curiae in the case, with Advocates Gunjan Sharma, Rajarshi Gupta, and Babita Upadhyay representing the convicts, while Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinha represented the State.
