Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld life imprisonment for seven members of a family convicted for the brutal murders of a teenage couple in Meerut, allegedly for having a romantic relationship that defied familial expectations.

Delivering its judgment in chamber on April 7, 2025, a division bench comprising Justices Siddharth and Praveen Kumar Giri dismissed appeals filed by Ibrahim and his co-accused—his six sons—challenging their 2013 conviction for the double murder of 22-year-old Sharafat and 16-year-old Soni.

Court noted that the trial court’s findings were based on detailed medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the inquest reports, which clearly pointed to a calculated, vengeful act committed within the confines of the accused’s own home.

The murders took place on the night of February 5, 2006, and were allegedly motivated by the discovery of an intimate relationship between Soni and Sharafat, neighbours in a Meerut village.

According to the prosecution, the couple was forcibly taken inside the home of the accused and later found dead. Sharafat’s body bore multiple injuries—broken ribs, lacerated lungs, and contusions—while Soni had signs of asphyxiation and fractured hyoid bones, indicating throttling. The post-mortem confirmed that she had been hanged and assaulted before death.

The case, registered under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 of the IPC, stemmed from a First Information Report lodged by Sharafat’s brother Raees Ahmad (the informant). He alleged that Ibrahim’s family had previously warned him to send Sharafat away, citing his “illicit” relationship with Soni, Ibrahim's daughter. When the proposal for their marriage extended by the informant was rejected, tensions escalated.

On the night of the incident, eight assailants—armed with guns, sticks, and axes—allegedly stormed the informant’s house, dragged out Sharafat, and assaulted both him and Soni. Their bodies were later discovered inside Ibrahim’s house. Notably, eye-witnesses cited artificial light from gas lamps and torches as aiding visibility during the nocturnal attack.

Though key prosecution witnesses initially supported the case, they later turned hostile after charges under Sections 504 and 506 were added and a de novo trial began. The court, however, refused to discount their earlier statements and corroborated evidence, ruling that the material on record was sufficient for conviction.

"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," the court observed. It stressed that thought the hostile witnesses deposed that some unknown persons had killed the couple but they did not attribute any motive for such an act. Whereas, the appellants had sufficient motive of 'dishonor'.

Case Title: Ibrahim vs. State of UP and connected matters