Husband's murder occurred inside bedroom, wife's duty to explain her conduct: Allahabad High Court upholds woman & alleged lover's conviction

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the appeals against conviction moved by a woman and her alleged lover in the murder case of woman's husband.

Upholding the conviction and life sentences awarded to the duo, the bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav took note of the fact that during the investigation, the woman had given no plausible explanation for her conduct at the night of the incident.

Court said that woman could not explain her leaving the bedroom after midnight, to sleep on the roof, though she and her husband had gone to sleep inside the room after dinner that night. 

Court also pointed out that in the morning itself when the woman's mother-in-law asked her to wake her husband up, she ignored and said that she was busy preparing breakfast in the kitchen.

Court observed, "The prosecution has also proved the conduct of the wife of the deceased after the incident....The incident had occurred inside the bedroom where husband and wife went to sleep. It is heavy-duty of the wife to explain how the incident occurred or in what state she left the room, where her husband was found murdered."

The murder weapon-a knife, and vest of woman's alleged lover, accused Ajai Prasad, which he wore at the time of committing the murder, was also recovered at the pointing out of accused Ajai Prasad.

The prosecution had claimed that accused Ajai Prasad had illicit relations with accused Reena Srivastava (wife of the deceased man) and they killed the man in furtherance of their common intention.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the complaint filed by deceased man's brother who had stated that on the night of the incident, some of the family members were sleeping inside their bedrooms while others, including his mother, were on the roof. 

He alleged that at around 1 o'clock in the night, his deceased brother's wife went to the roof to sleep leaving her bedroom and the next morning, his mother found his brother dead in their bedroom. 

He also stated that he found injuries on his brother's dead body and guessed that some unknown person had killed him in the night. However, during the course of the investigation, Reena and Ajai's names surfaced as prime accused. 

Ajai Prasad, who was sleeping on the campus of the school adjacent to their house on the pretext of inconvenience in sleeping on the roof, confessed his crime.

The Trial Court held Ajai Prasad guilty under Section 302 IPC and Reena Srivastava under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Both appealed against Trial Court's decision in the high court. 

The High Court found that all witnesses of facts could prove that Ajai Prasad and Reena Srivastava were close to each other, and their closeness was not liked by the deceased or his family members. 

Taking note of all the facts and circumstances, Court held that the Trial Court had rightly held the accused persons guilty and sentenced them accordingly. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere in the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, the High Court dismissed the appeals. 

Case Title: Reena Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P.