'Sufficient Motive': Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction Of 7 Including Man Who Killed Daughter, Lover Over Disapproved Relationship

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri noted that the incident, which occurred 19 years ago, was a result of the father's disapproval of the relationship between his daughter and her lover, which served as the “sufficient motive” to kill the deceased.

“It is established law that a man can tell a lie but circumstances cannot. Even the witnesses who later on turned hostile have admitted that both the deceased person were killed. Though they have deposed that some unknown persons had killed the deceased but they have not attributed any motive on those unknown persons for killing the deceased. Whereas, the accused appellants had sufficient motive as they felt dishonoured because of the love affair of their daughter/sister, deceased-Soni with deceased-Sarafat and, therefore, they killed both of them,” the bench observed in its 24-page order.

In its order, the Court also held that once the examination-in-chief as well as cross examination of the witnesses are already recorded and their evidence is complete, thereafter, if charges are altered/amended/added, the Trial Court should restrain itself from permitting the de novo trial to enable the said witnesses to discard their earlier depositions.

The Court added that in such circumstances, the Trial Court should permit the witnesses to depose only with respect to the altered/amended/added charges.

In this case, the informant (Raees Ahmad), filed an FIR alleging that his brother (Sharafat) was murdered on February 5, 2006, by the accused— Ibrahim, his six sons, and two other individuals— based on their suspicion that their daughter (Soni), whom they also killed, was in a relationship with Sharafat.

Initially, the accused faced charges under Sections 147, 149, and 302 of the IPC, but during the trial, additional charges under Section 504 were introduced, and the trial court allowed a de novo (fresh) trial under all the charges. This was done after the completion of the Examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2.

Just after the charges were amended, Informant (Raees Ahmad), Anwar, and others, who initially supported the prosecution's version of the case, resiled from their earlier statements and were declared hostile.

Raees Ahmad (PW-1) and Anwar (PW-2) effectively changed their statements under cross-examination, as they later deposed that, in fact, the unknown miscreants had killed the deceased persons and not the accused.

Other witnesses, including Jiju (PW-6), Liaqat Ali (PW-7), and Yamin (PW-8), were also declared hostile after they testified that 13-14 unknown miscreants were responsible for the murders, not the accused.

However, the trial court convicted the accused of Murder. Challenging their conviction, the accused moved the HC, wherein their counsels argued that none of the witnesses had supported the prosecution's case.

It was contended that no one had seen the incident, and it is a case of circumstantial evidence where the chain of evidence is incomplete.

On the other hand, the AGA reiterated the strong evidence against the accused and submitted that it was a case of honour killing where the accused-appellants have killed their own daughter/sister (Soni) and the informant's brother (Sarafat) as they were against their relationship.

Analysing the evidence on record, the division bench noted that the informant did not deny the murder of the deceased, but they tried to twist the story, which was not reliable.

The Court added that while PW-1 had already assigned motive to the appellants for committing the murder of both the deceased as an honour killing, and only in his later examination-in-chief, he stated that some unknown person had committed the murder.

The Court also believed that PW-1 had not denied the totality of the incident, as well as the presence of the accused persons on the spot and in such circumstances, the Trial Court should not have permitted a de novo trial in the present case.

In view of the above, concurring with the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge in holding the accused-appellants guilty under Sections 147, 302/149 of IPC, the bench dismissed the criminal appeals and confirmed the judgment of conviction.

Noting that the accused-appellants, Ibrahim, Kayoom and Farukh are on bail, the Court directed them to be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence.

So far as accused-appellants, Sannuar, Shaukeen, Mussarat & Ayub are concerned, the Court noted that they are in jail, hence, no order is required regarding them.

Apperances

Counsel for Appellant: Amit Daga, Yogesh Srivastava, Ajay Kumar Mishra, Arun Srivastava, Kandarp Srivastava, Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Yadav, VP Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent: AGA Prem Shankar Prasad

Case title - Ibrahim vs. State of U.P along with connected appeals 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 117

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 117

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment