Court found snake was used by the accused couple to conceal murder of the woman's husband.

A Meerut Sessions Court has sentenced a couple to death for murdering the woman's husband by strangulation and placing a snake beside his body to make it appear that he had died of a snakebite. The death sentence imposed on Amardeep (20) and Ravita (28) is subject to confirmation by the Allahabad High Court. Court also sentenced both convicts to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence.

Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaiveer Singh Nagar, convicted the two under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 [earlier Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC, respectively]. It held that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive, call-detail records, last-seen evidence and the alleged purchase and recovery of the snake.

In its judgment, court described the alleged murder not merely as the killing of an individual but as an attack on Indian culture and marital trust.

“प्रस्तुत मामले में न्यायालय के समक्ष केवल एक व्यक्ति की हत्या का मामला नहीं है, बल्कि यह भारतीय संस्कृति की आत्मा पर किया गया गहरा प्रहार है,” it said.

Victim Amit Kashyap was found dead on the morning of April 13, 2025, on his cot at home. A live snake was found beside him. His elder brother, Monu Kashyap, noticed injuries on his face and neck.

On complaint of Monu, on April 16, 2025, the FIR was registered under Sections 103(1) and 238 BNS. Monu alleged that Amit's wife, Ravita, was in an extramarital relationship with Amardeep, a man from the same village who also worked with Amit. Monu alleged that the relationship had caused disputes between Amit and Ravita, including a quarrel on April 12, 2025. He suspected that Ravita and Amardeep had killed Amit.

The prosecution alleged that the two strangled Amit and left the snake near his body to mislead the family and investigators about the cause of death. It relied on the post-mortem findings to contend that Amit had been strangled, rather than killed by a snakebite.

Court relied on the testimony of Amit's mother, Munesh, who said she had seen Amardeep leaving the house during the early hours of the night. It also considered call-detail records and location information, along with the testimony of witnesses who said Amardeep had obtained the snake and that it was later found beside Amit's body.

On challenge to the snake's recovery, court held that the absence of photographs or video footage did not, by itself, make the recovery doubtful. It observed that the prosecution had established the relevant circumstances through witness testimony.

Further, on the delay of four days in the registration of the FIR, court accepted the explanation that the family had initially suspected snakebite but when the post-mortem examination clarified that Amit had died from strangulation, it lodged an FIR.

Court concluded that the snake had been left beside the body to create a false impression about the cause of death. It said the act was intended to mislead.

Regarding the sentencing, court held that the life imprisonment would be inadequate in the circumstances of the case.

“यदि घर की रक्षक ही भक्षक बन जाये और प्रेमी के मोह में अंधी होकर अपने ही पति की हत्या कर दे, तो पूरा समाज असुरक्षित हो जायेगा (“If the one meant to protect the home becomes its destroyer and, blinded by her infatuation with her lover, kills her own husband, the entire society would become unsafe),” court observed.

Court also cited the Mahabharata, specifically the Shanti Parva, 15/3, while discussing the principles underlying punishment.

Court quoted the following Sanskrit verse:

“दण्डनीतिर्यदा सम्यक् राजा दण्डं प्रयच्छति।

अचमेतदा सर्वे धर्मा वर्धन्ते तदा धर्मो न हीयते ॥
It means: When a king awards punishment properly in accordance with the principles of punishment, all forms of dharma flourish and dharma does not decline.

Court referred to the impact of the crime on Amit's three children, who lost their father while their mother was imprisoned.

Regarding the quantum of sentence, although court considered mitigating factors, including the accused persons' ages, deceased's three children and the absence of a criminal history, it concluded that these did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances.

Accordingly, court held that the case met the “rarest of rare” threshold and imposed the death penalty, subject to the high court confirmation.

Separately, court directed the District Magistrate to oversee the three children's education and health, secure their admission to good schools and ensure that they receive benefits under government schemes. The District Magistrate was also directed to inform the court of the action taken.

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amardeep and Ravita

Judgment Date: October 7, 2026

Sentencing Date: October 16, 2026

Court: Jaiveer Singh Nagar, Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut

Tags: