05/10/2025
Mata Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1612/2013
Hon’ble Justices Rajnish Kumar and Rajeev Singh of Allahabad High Court,Lucknow Bench
Allowed a criminal appeal
reiterating that suspicion however strong cannot replace proof.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Mata Prasad Mishra, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gonda, under Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering his wife Shail Kumari by smothering her during the night of 4 September 2011. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000.
The prosecution case rested on the complaint lodged by Raj Kumar Pandey, brother of the deceased, on 8 September 2011—four days after the alleged incident. The FIR stated that the accused habitually beat his wife and demanded money for intoxicants. When she refused to give him money, he purportedly killed her by pressing her mouth while she slept.
According to the prosecution, the deceased’s 10-year-old son Manoj Kumar Pandey (P.W. 2) witnessed the crime and later narrated it to his uncle, the complainant. The police conducted an inquest and post-mortem, which recorded asphyxia due to smothering as the cause of death. A pillow allegedly used in the act was recovered at the instance of the appellant.
At trial, seven prosecution witnesses were examined, including the complainant, the child witness, and the investigating officer. The defence examined Shivangi Mishra (D.W. 1), daughter of the deceased, who deposed that her father was not at home that night, as he was attending to his ailing grandmother. She also stated that her maternal uncle harboured hostility toward her father. Despite this defence, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant.
Submissions by the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant argued that the entire prosecution story was fabricated and rested on hearsay and circumstantial evidence. The four-day delay in filing the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting afterthought and concoction.
It was emphasized that the first report sent by one Rakesh Kumar (the deceased’s son-in-law) on 5 September 2011 described the incident as a sudden death, not homicide. Even the inquest report made no allegation of murder, and the appellant himself was present during the inquest proceedings.
The counsel attacked the credibility of P.W. 2, the minor child witness, asserting that his deposition was contradictory and improbable. The boy claimed to have seen his father suffocating his mother, yet none of the other children in the same room woke up. He also stated that the family slept without food, while the post-mortem revealed semi-digested food in the stomach. These contradictions rendered his testimony unreliable.
The recovery of the pillow, it was argued, was meaningless in the absence of forensic proof such as fingerprints or human fibres. The site plan did not match the alleged recovery location. The defence witness, the daughter of the deceased, gave a consistent and natural version, asserting the appellant’s absence and highlighting pre-existing enmity between her father and the complainant due to a money dispute.
The trial court, it was submitted, ignored these crucial discrepancies, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Submissions by the State Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate supported the conviction, contending that medical evidence proved homicidal death by smothering and not a natural one. The motive was clear—habitual quarrels over the appellant’s addiction and demand for money.
It was further argued that P.W. 2’s direct testimony carried significant weight, as a child would have no reason to falsely implicate his own father. The delay in filing the FIR was attributed to the family’s mental shock. The State maintained that the recovery of the pillow corroborated the prosecution version and that minor inconsistencies were inconsequential.
Opinion of the Hon’ble Bench
The Division Bench carefully re-examined the evidence and found the prosecution case unreliable and inconsistent.
The Court observed that the first information given immediately after the death mentioned only sudden demise, not murder. The appellant’s presence at the inquest further weakened the claim of concealment or guilt. The FIR’s four-day delay remained unexplained and suggested manipulation of facts after deliberation.
P.W. 1, the complainant, was not an eyewitness; his version was entirely hearsay. The child witness (P.W. 2), though crucial, gave statements contradicting both physical and medical evidence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Bench reiterated that a child witness must be of “sterling quality,” wholly consistent and free from tutoring. The Court held that P.W. 2’s testimony did not meet this standard.
The Court also held that the investigation was defective noting the absence of scientific corroboration for the pillow recovery and discrepancies between the site plan and witness accounts.
Conversely, the testimony of D.W. 1 Shivangi Mishra was found natural, coherent, and credible. Her statement that her father was away that night was unshaken in cross-examination. The Court held that the trial court failed to appreciate defence evidence and wrongly brushed aside material contradictions.
Reiterating that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was therefore unsustainable in law.
Allowing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence, and acquitted Mata Prasad Mishra of the charge under Section 302 IPC. He was directed to be released forthwith, unless wanted in another case.
