He Was Beaten to Death, She Was Strangled – Love Affair Ended in Double Murder: Allahabad High Court Confirms Life Sentence in Shocking Meerut Honor Killing Case

No Parent Has Right to Become Executioner of Their Daughter’s Choice in Love: High Court Rejects Appeals, Upholds Conviction of Father and Sons in Brutal Killing of Sharafat and Soni - In a chilling reminder of how deeply entrenched societal prejudices against inter-caste and love relationships still are, the Allahabad High Court on April 7, 2025, upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of eight accused — including the girl’s father Ibrahim and six of his sons — for the brutal murder of Sharafat and his lover Soni, in an incident that shocked Meerut nearly two decades ago.
Delivering the verdict in CRLA No. 442 of 2013 (Ibrahim v. State of U.P.), the Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri called the case a “textbook instance of mob retribution masked as honor”, refusing to interfere with the trial court’s judgment delivered on 7 January 2013.
“The conviction of the accused under Sections 147 and 302/149 IPC is based on credible, consistent, and cogent evidence — including medical reports, eye-witness testimony, and the discovery of both bodies inside the home of the accused themselves.”“They Wanted to Punish Her for Love — But They Punished Her With Death”
According to the prosecution, Soni, daughter of main accused Ibrahim, was in a relationship with Sharafat, a young man from the same locality. When the relationship became known, Ibrahim allegedly warned the informant (Sharafat’s brother) to “send Sharafat out of the village or face dire consequences.”
The informant even proposed that the couple marry, but the proposal was rejected. On the night of 5 February 2006, Ibrahim, his sons — Farukh, Mussarat, Ayub, Sannaur, Kayoom, and Shaukin — and two others allegedly abducted Sharafat from his home and took him to their house.
Both Sharafat and Soni were later found dead inside the accused’s house.
“A gas lamp and torch light were used during the assault. Both deceased were discovered in different rooms of the same house. There is no scope for false implication when the bodies are found at the scene of the accused themselves,” the Court held.
“Soni’s Hyoid Bones Were Fractured, Sharafat’s Ribs Were Crushed – This Was No Accident”
Postmortem reports played a key role in affirming the brutality of the attack.
Soni, just 16 years old, had both her hyoid bones fractured, her lips cyanosed, and contusions across her forehead — classic signs of manual strangulation, not suicide. The cause of death was listed as asphyxia from hanging but inconsistencies and the injury pattern pointed towards throttling and assault.
Sharafat, 22, had rib fractures (2 to 11) on the right side, a lacerated lung, contusions on the face and limbs, and was declared dead due to hemorrhage and shock.
“These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course — this was clearly a case of intentional murder,” the Court noted.
“They Were Neighbours, Their Children Fell in Love — The Price Was Their Lives”
Eyewitnesses supported the prosecution’s version, including Sharafat’s brother Raees Ahmad, who deposed that the accused stormed into their home with weapons and dragged Sharafat away. Several others, including Anwar, Liyaqat, Jiju, and Yameen, corroborated this under oath.
Interestingly, the informant initially gave consistent testimony, but turned hostile during re-examination after the addition of charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. However, the Court dismissed this as “afterthought or pressure tactic”, affirming that initial testimony and physical evidence aligned beyond doubt.
“It is not unusual in rural criminal trials for witnesses to turn hostile under threat or societal pressure — but courts are not bound to accept later contradictions if original statements are sound and corroborated.”
“Trial Was Conducted Fairly, Charges Were Lawfully Framed — Conviction Deserved to Stand”
Rejecting all grounds of appeal — including procedural claims, witness hostility, and alleged fabrication — the Bench said:
“The findings of the trial court are well-supported by evidence. The double homicide occurred within the house of the accused. Both victims were found dead there. Medical evidence confirms homicidal violence. The conviction is unimpeachable.”
The Court upheld the sentences of life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and two years under Section 147 IPC, along with a fine of ₹10,000 each.
“No society has the right to annihilate a young couple merely because their relationship offends family honour. The rule of law must prevail over personal retribution.”
The High Court thus dismissed all three connected criminal appeals.
 

Date of Decision : April 7, 2025