Allahabad High Court Acquits Woman Sentenced To Death For Drowning Her 3 Children

The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a woman sentenced to death for allegedly drowning her three children in the Sengur river in Auraiya, holding that the prosecution case rested on an unreliable and allegedly tutored child witness, contradictory testimony and serious lapses in investigation.

A division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay also acquitted the woman's alleged accomplice, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The high court said the prosecution had "miserably failed" to establish the guilt of either accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Case background

The case concerned the deaths of three children, Madhav @ Gunga, 6, Aditya @ Tilla, 5, and Mangal, 4, whose bodies were recovered near a bridge over the Sengur river in Auraiya on June 27, 2024.

According to the prosecution, Priyanka had taken her four sons to the river at around 5 am along with Ashish @ Daini, her husband's younger brother. She allegedly attempted to drown all four children, but the eldest, Sonu, survived after pretending to be dead and later became the prosecution's principal eyewitness.

The FIR, lodged at 6.44 pm that day by Manish, the children's uncle, alleged that Priyanka and Ashish had planned the killings because they were in a relationship and wanted to get rid of the children.

Reliability of child witness

The high court, however, found serious contradictions in Sonu's account. Court noted that the child said he had first reached the village Pradhan, Jitendra Bhushan, and narrated the incident to him, following which the Pradhan called the police. But the first informant, Manish, gave a different account, saying that he received information about the deaths from the Pradhan and did not know who had initially informed him.

Court also noted that although Sonu claimed that police had taken him to the police station on the day of the incident, his statement was actually recorded only on July 5, 2024.

"The sole testimony of the 8 year-old child witness suffers from irreconcilable contradictions and exhibits clear hallmarks of tutoring," court said, holding that it was unsafe to base the conviction solely on his evidence.

The bench observed that children are vulnerable to external suggestions and that their evidence must therefore be examined with "extraordinary circumspection and care".

Gram Pradhan's non-examination

Court also found significance in the prosecution's failure to examine Jitendra Bhushan, the village Pradhan who had first informed the police about the deaths.

Court noted that the Pradhan's written application had set the criminal law in motion and that, according to the prosecution evidence, Sonu had first informed him about the incident. The Pradhan's statement was also recorded by the investigating officer, but he was not produced before the trial court.

The high court held that his examination was "absolutely vital" because the prosecution's case substantially depended on the evidence of the child witness. It said withholding such a material witness entitled the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.

The bench also found contradictions in the testimony of Manish, including over who informed him about the incident and whether the investigating officer prepared the site plan on his pointing out.

Serious investigation lapses

The high court further criticised the investigation. It noted that the police had received information about the children's deaths through the Pradhan's application and had made a general diary entry, after which officers reached the spot and recovered the bodies.

The panchayatnamas and post-mortem examinations were completed before the FIR was registered at 6.44 pm. Court also noted that none of the panchayatnamas or post-mortem reports initially carried a case crime number.

Court said the failure to record the child's statement on the day of the incident, conflicting accounts about who pointed out the site for preparation of the site plan, and the failure to register an FIR on the Pradhan's application were not minor procedural irregularities.

These lapses, it said, "shake the root of the prosecution case and create doubt about its credibility".

The trial court's July 2025 judgment convicting the accused was accordingly set aside by the high court. Priyanka and Ashish were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith if they were not wanted in any other case.

Case Title: Priyanka v. State of U.P. and Another along with Ashish @ Daini v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P.

Judgment Date: September 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay