'Wife Was Murdered Only Because She Strongly Protested Against Their Illicit Relation': Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction Of Husband, His Lover

The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that such persons are not entitled to any leniency as they are a black spot in society.

“This version of P.W.-3 that the accused-appellants, namely, Jaikishan @ Bablu and Anita used to have illicit relations, which the deceased used to object and due to which the accused-appellant Jaikishan used to beat and torture the deceased and ultimately, in the night of the incident, both the accused-appellants killed her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire, has been fully supported by the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.-2 and the version as unfolded in the FIR, even though the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are hear say witnesses but they are consistent from the very beginning and till the recording of their statements before the trial court,” the Court concluded in its operative part of the Judgment.

With this, the Court REJECTED the appeals filed by the accused-appellants (Jai Kishan @ Bablu and Anita) challenging the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in the year 2013 convicting them under Sections 302/120B IPC.

The case in brief

The FIR was lodged at the instance of the informant (Niranjan Sharma) in July 2011 alleging that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Rekha (deceased) with Jai Kishan (accused no. 1) about 14 years ago. He further alleged that the accused-appellant started establishing an illicit relationship with accused no. 2 (Anita). Since the deceased (wife of the accused no. 1) used to repeatedly object to her husband having illicit relations with Anita, she was done to death by both of them.

The Trial Court, relying upon the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the prosecution and after recording categorical findings of facts, concluded that the charges against the accused-appellants had been able to fully prove that they committed the murder of the deceased.

Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, the accused-appellant preferred the instant jail appeal.

High Court’s observations

On the deeper scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of the trial as also the judgment of the trial court, the Court said that it was in full agreement with the categorical findings recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment.

The Court noted that the trial court had rightly recorded that according to P.W.-6 Dr Jitendra Kumar Autopsy Surgeon, the deceased was burnt up to 70% and that the deceased was burnt due to kerosene oil being poured on her and being set on fire and that there was no such reliable evidence or proof available on record to suggest that the deceased committed suicide.

The Court further noted that PW-3 Tanu, son of the deceased and accused, in his testimony, specifically implicated his father and accused Anita of killing his mother by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire and the said testimony was supported by PW-1 and PW-2 in their testimony.

“…it is worth noticing that no doubt there is some improvement in the statements of the star prosecution witness/solitary eye witness of the incident i.e. P.W.-3, but when both the statements are read together carefully, it will be definitely cropped up that the accused-appellants, namely, Jaikishan @ Bablu and Anita used to have illicit relations, which the deceased used to object and due to which the accused-appellant Jaikishan used to beat and torture her and ultimately, in the night of the incident, both the accused-appellants killed her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire.”

In this regard, the Court noted that no child in this country, who loves his mother and father most, will be ready to make allegations against his mother or father at the behest of his maternal grandfather or maternal uncle until he feels that wrong is done by his father with his mother or by his mother with his father.

In its observations, the Court also noted that the accused-appellants had a strong motive to kill the deceased and that the autopsy report of the body of the deceased as well as the statements of the Autopsy Surgeon supported the prosecution's version.

In view of this, upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants, the Court rejected the jail appeals of the accused by holding that they deserved no leniency.

Appearances

Counsels for Appellants: DS Pandey, Gajendra Kumar Gautam, KK Srivastava, Mohammad Arshad Khan, Saurabh Gour, RV Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Vikash Chandra Tiwari

Counsels for Respondent: Govt Advocate NK Sharma, Sunil Kumar Dubey

Case title - Jai Kishan @ Bablu vs. State of UP along with a connected criminal appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168

Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment