Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Accused of Murdering Wife Amid Property Dispute

Division Bench sets aside life imprisonment conviction citing reasonable doubt over intentionality of shooting and witness credibility concerns

In a significant judgment delivered on November 10, 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) acquitted Shailendra Kumar Mishra, who was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Sunita Devi, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, which had been pending since 1991 and culminated in a 1996 conviction and life imprisonment sentence, was overturned on grounds of insufficient evidence proving intentional murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The tragic incident involved the shooting death of Sunita Devi, who was previously married to Vijay Shankar Mishra, an Air Force sergeant who died in an air crash. Sunita Devi later married the appellant, and the couple had a daughter. The prosecution's case centered on a strained marital relationship fueled by the appellant's alleged demands for transfer of Sunita's money and property. On July 26, 1991, it was contended that Shailendra shot Sunita after she refused to transfer her assets.

Key witnesses included Sunita’s brother, Vijay Krishna Tripathi, and the deceased’s children from both marriages. The prosecution relied heavily on their testimonies and the appellant’s admission under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant claimed the gun discharged accidentally during a tussle with his wife when she tried to prevent him from confronting a man named Pradeep, with whom Sunita was alleged to have illicit relations.

The High Court scrutinized the evidence meticulously. It found the testimony of the first informant, Vijay Krishna Tripathi (PW-1), to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and his admitted inimical disposition toward the appellant. The court noted that PW-1 had a financial interest in the deceased’s property and had previously lodged a false FIR against the appellant, indicating possible bias.

The child witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5, were also found to have been potentially tutored by PW-1, as their testimonies showed material improvements and contradictions with their earlier statements to the police. The Investigating Officer corroborated that these witnesses’ statements had discrepancies, casting further doubt on their reliability.

Importantly, the appellant's admission that the gun was fired was read in conjunction with his full explanation that it was accidental, occurring amidst a struggle initiated by the deceased. The court emphasized that admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be considered in their entirety and cannot be dissected to accept only inculpatory parts while rejecting exculpatory explanations. The prosecution failed to disprove the appellant’s claim of accidental firing beyond reasonable doubt.

Further, the prosecution’s motive was questioned as no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate claims of the appellant’s financial pressure on the deceased. The alleged cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 from the Air Force was not proved by bank records, and the first informant himself admitted ignorance about the actual bank balances, weakening the prosecution’s narrative of strained relations over money.

The High Court also underscored the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses like neighbors and Mithilesh, who might have thrown light on the appellant’s conduct after the incident - a relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The absence of such testimony was considered fatal to the prosecution case.

The medical evidence revealed that while the deceased suffered fatal gunshot injuries, one injury could possibly have resulted from a scuffle, lending some credence to the appellant’s version. The court also rejected the theory of extramarital affair and provocation raised by the appellant as unsubstantiated.

Though the trial court and the single judge affirmed the conviction, the Division Bench dissented, holding that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the intention or knowledge required for murder under Section 300 IPC. The court applied the principle that where two views are possible - one favoring prosecution and the other accused - the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Consequently, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence and acquitted Shailendra Kumar Mishra. His bail bond was cancelled, and sureties discharged. The case was directed for further consideration by the Chief Justice under Section 392 Cr.P.C. due to the division in opinion between the judges.

This judgment highlights the critical importance of scrutinizing witness credibility, the full context of accused's statements, and strict adherence to procedural safeguards under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in criminal trials, especially in cases hinging on circumstantial evidence and child witnesses.

Bottom Line:

Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of intention or knowledge to cause death; an accidental firing during a tussle cannot sustain conviction for murder without such proof.

Statutory provision(s): Section 302 IPC, Section 300 IPC, Section 313 Cr.P.C., Section 8 Evidence Act

Shailendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806173