Court Sets Aside Death Sentence and Life Imprisonment, Highlights Tutored Child Testimony, Non-examination of Key Witness, and Investigative Lapses as Grounds for Acquittal
In a significant judgment delivered on September 22, 2026, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay acquitted Priyanka and Ashish @ Daini, who were earlier convicted for the murder of three children, including Priyanka’s own sons. The trial court had sentenced Priyanka to death and Ashish to life imprisonment, but the High Court overturned these convictions, citing serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
The case arose from an incident on June 27, 2024, when three children—aged 4, 5, and 6 years—were found drowned near the Sengur River in Auraiya district, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that Priyanka, the mother, along with Ashish, had deliberately killed the children to continue their illicit relationship without obstacles. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the sole testimony of Sonu, the eldest surviving child witness, aged around eight years.
However, the High Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence and found glaring contradictions and indications of tutoring in the child witness’s testimony. The Court observed that the child’s narrative was artificially structured, lacked natural spontaneity, and was inconsistent with normal human behavior, especially the improbability that the accused would spare the eldest child capable of implicating them while killing the younger siblings.
Further, the Court noted that the first informant, Manish, who lodged the FIR, gave shifting accounts about the source of his information, at times attributing it to the child, the village Gram Pradhan, or Priyanka’s aunt, undermining the reliability of his testimony. Crucially, the Gram Pradhan Jitendra Bhushan, who initially informed the police and was a material witness present at the genesis of the investigation, was not examined during the trial despite being named in the police report. The non-examination of this vital witness led the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.
The Court also highlighted serious investigative lapses, including the failure to record the child witness’s statement on the date of the incident, discrepancies regarding the preparation of the site plan, delayed lodging of the FIR, and failure to treat the Gram Pradhan’s application as an FIR despite cognizable offences being disclosed. These fundamental defects struck at the root of the prosecution’s case.
Relying on settled legal principles governing the evaluation of child witnesses—mandating rigorous judicial scrutiny and caution due to their vulnerability to tutoring—the Court found the child’s testimony insufficient as the sole basis for conviction. The Court also applied the touchstone of natural human conduct to reject the prosecution’s improbable theory.
In light of these findings, the High Court allowed both the Criminal Capital Appeal and Jail Appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and acquitted the accused of all charges. The Court ordered their immediate release unless wanted in other cases.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in ensuring that convictions, especially in capital cases, rest on unimpeachable evidence and highlights the critical importance of examining material witnesses and ensuring thorough investigations. It also reaffirms the cautious approach courts must adopt when relying on child witnesses.
Bottom Line:
Evidence - Child witness - Sole testimony of 8-year-old child witness suffering from contradictions and hallmarks of tutoring cannot be made sole basis of conviction - Non-examination of Gram Pradhan, who first informed police and was material witness to genesis of occurrence, warrants adverse inference against prosecution - Serious investigative lapses and unreliable testimony of informant entitle accused to benefit of doubt - Conviction and death sentence set aside and accused acquitted.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 307, 120-B; Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 114, 118; Criminal Procedure Code Section 161, 313
Priyanka v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983332
