‘Pregnancy Outside Wedlock Invites Violent Reactions’: Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence of Parents for Killing Minor Daughter, Tenant

“A daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a nightmare,” the Allahabad High Court observed while upholding the life imprisonment of a Shahjahanpur couple convicted of strangling their minor daughter and her alleged partner after discovering that she was pregnant.

Court held that the pregnancy of the 15-year-old girl supplied the motive for the crime and that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that her parents, Mukesh Gupta and Seema Gupta, had murdered her and Pradeep Kumar, a tenant in their house.

A division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed appeals filed by the couple challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 and Section 3(5) of the BNS].

According to the prosecution, the incident took place in Village Barah Kalan in Shahjahanpur district. Pradeep Kumar, aged about 28 years, had been living as a tenant in Mukesh Gupta’s house and worked as a private tutor and teacher at a local inter college.

Court noted that the relationship between Pradeep and the girl had resulted in her pregnancy.

On the night of August 19, 2014, Pradeep’s brother Brajesh Kumar received a phone call from a mobile number allegedly used by Mukesh Gupta. During the call, Mukesh accused Pradeep of having illicit relations with his daughter and impregnating her. Mukesh then made Pradeep speak to his brother. Pradeep sounded frightened and said that Mukesh and his wife had confined him and were accusing him of impregnating their daughter.

The next day, before Pradeep’s family could reach the village, they received information that both Pradeep and the girl had been killed. When they arrived at the house, they found the bodies of both victims lying inside a room in the premises.

Post-mortem examinations conducted on August 21, 2014 found that both deaths were caused by asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation. Medical evidence also confirmed that the girl was pregnant. An ultrasound examination conducted a day earlier showed that she was carrying a 25-week-old foetus.

While analysing motive, the high court referred to the social stigma attached to pregnancy outside marriage. “It always invites uncontrollable reactions from parents, mostly violent, either for themselves or the daughter or the wrongdoer or both of them,” the bench observed.

At the same time, court noted that reactions may vary depending on social background. “The embarrassment would be there generally amongst any class of persons, but those refined by education might react in a different way,” it said.

Referring to the accused, court remarked that “the appellants represent the ordinary and average cross-section of the Indian society, where extreme reactions to the situation are commonplace.”

The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The high court noted that Mukesh Gupta had discovered his daughter’s pregnancy and blamed Pradeep for it, which established motive.

Court also relied on call detail records showing that Mukesh had contacted Pradeep’s brother late at night and had made Pradeep speak during the conversation.

Another crucial circumstance was that the bodies of both victims were found inside a room located within the accused persons’ premises. In such a situation, court said, the accused were required to explain how the deaths occurred inside their house.

The counsel for the appellants argued that the deaths could have been suicidal and relied on medical literature to suggest that suicide by strangulation, though rare, was possible. Court rejected the argument, noting that such cases require a contrivance to maintain pressure on the neck, which was absent at the scene.

Mukesh Gupta also claimed that he had travelled to Etawah to sell goats on the night of the incident. However, court held that the alibi was unsupported by documentary evidence such as toll receipts or travel records.

Seema Gupta claimed that she was asleep upstairs with her children and discovered the bodies the next morning. Court found the explanation implausible.

While the high court held that an alleged extra-judicial confession attributed to Seema Gupta could not be relied upon because she was in police custody at the time, it held that the remaining circumstances formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.

Court therefore upheld the trial court’s judgment convicting Mukesh Gupta and Seema Gupta and sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Case Title: Smt. Seema Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh (along with Mukesh Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judgment Date: February 11, 2026

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi