Father Must Explain the Death Inside His Home: Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Daughter’s Murder, Applies Section 106 Evidence Act

“When the accused was inside the house at the time of death and fails to explain, the presumption of guilt is not just warranted—it is inevitable”, In a significant judgment reinforcing the evidentiary weight of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a father for murdering his 17-year-old daughter, ruling that the accused failed to explain how the victim died inside their house, where both were present at the relevant time.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh affirmed the trial court’s judgment dated 30.07.2016, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his minor daughter with a cloth string (‘nada’) inside their home.

Despite key prosecution witnesses including the complainant-wife and other family members turning hostile, the High Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was unbroken, and invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act to hold the appellant responsible.

“Once the prosecution proves that the death occurred in the accused's house, he must explain it—silence is not innocence”

The Bench ruled that the burden of explaining the circumstances surrounding the unnatural death shifted to the father, once it was proved that the incident happened inside the house where he was admittedly present and awake.

“Admittedly, he was in the house at the time of death of his daughter. Therefore, the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was on him to prove as to how his daughter had died, which he has failed to prove,” the Court held in Para 38 of the judgment.

In his Section 313 CrPC statement, the appellant offered no plausible explanation and merely claimed ignorance about how his daughter died. The Court observed that such vague denials, in the face of a confirmed homicide within the confines of the home, strengthened the presumption of guilt.

“Recovery under Section 27 stands proved—cloth string used to kill the girl recovered at accused’s instance”

The recovery of the cloth string (nada)—used in the strangulation—was made at the appellant’s disclosure and pointing out, and the recovery memo was signed by the appellant himself. The site plan and recovery documentation, prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW-6), were unshaken in cross-examination.

“The recovery stands proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,” the Court held.

Relying on Boby v. State of Kerala (2023) 15 SCC 760 and Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor (1946 SCC OnLine PC 47), the Court reiterated that recovery based on accused’s disclosure while in custody is admissible, provided it leads to the discovery of a material fact—as it did in this case.

“Hostility of witnesses does not defeat prosecution when circumstantial chain is complete”

Notably, the wife (PW-1), son (PW-4), and daughter-in-law (PW-5) of the appellant—all key eyewitnesses—turned hostile during the trial. However, the Court ruled that hostile testimony does not vitiate the prosecution’s case when it is otherwise supported by cogent circumstantial and documentary evidence.

The written complaint, allegedly disowned by the wife, was proved by PW-3, the scribe Rohit Singh, who testified that he wrote the complaint on her instructions and read it back to her before she signed it. The signature matched with her deposition in court, further corroborating the FIR version.

“The version in the FIR is of the complainant. It was dictated by her, written by PW-3 and signed by her. Thus, the contents are duly proved despite her turning hostile,” the Court concluded.

The Court also found it telling that the appellant was not present during the post-mortem and inquest, and was arrested from near his house the following morning, contradicting his own claim that he was “sleeping at home unaware of what happened.”

“Post-mortem confirms ante mortem strangulation—loop could not have been self-inflicted”

The post-mortem conducted on the same day confirmed the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. The medical expert, Dr. Sharad Kumar Pandey (PW-7), ruled out suicide or accident, stating that:

“The loop in the neck could not have been put on her own.”

The ligature mark matched the dimensions of the cloth string recovered, and the time of death coincided with the timeframe mentioned in the FIR.

Court applies Sharad Birdhichand Sarda test: “Chain of circumstances is complete, excludes innocence”

Applying the classic five-point test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court held:

“There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

The Bench found that the location of the crime, recovery of the murder weapon, failure of the accused to explain the death, post-mortem findings, and the initial complaint narrative, taken together, formed a clinching chain of circumstances pointing only to the appellant’s guilt.

Court refuses to interfere with trial court findings: “No other view possible”

Rejecting the appellant’s plea that the prosecution case was riddled with contradictions and conjecture, the High Court held that the trial court’s findings were legally sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellate court found no perversity or illegality to warrant interference.

“This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the conclusions drawn, and nothing could be pointed before this Court, on the basis of which any other view was possible.”

A Daughter’s Death Demands an Explanation—When the Accused Sleeps Beside the Crime, Silence Equals Guilt

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment is a clear affirmation that a criminal trial cannot be derailed by hostile witnesses when the documentary, forensic, and circumstantial record withstands legal scrutiny. When a person is found dead inside a locked house, and the accused is found sleeping beside the corpse—the law demands answers.

The Court’s application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in this case is both meticulous and appropriate, sending a clear message: “Where the explanation lies solely within the accused’s knowledge, failure to provide it will justify adverse inference.”

Date of Decision: 24 November 2025