Allahabad HC Confirms Conviction in Chilling Navratri Triple Murder Case

In a chilling case of familial betrayal, the Allahabad High Court affirmed the life sentence of a man and his son for the brutal pre-planned murder of his parents and brother to usurp property during the noise and celebration of Navratri.

A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi heard the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellants for the triple murder that occurred in 2005. The Court found the prosecution's evidence against the accused-appellants to be robust, particularly the forensic corroboration of the murder weapons and the testimony of eye-witnesses.

Strategic Execution of Murder Amidst Religious Celebrations

The Court observed that the appellants had meticulously chosen the first day of Navratri to execute their plan, relying on the noise of generators and religious films playing at a nearby temple to mask the sound of gunshots. The bench noted that the motive was rooted in both illicit relations and a desire to grab immovable property.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The intention and purpose of the appellants were that on the first day of Navratri of Durga Pooja, after 11:00 p.m. in the night, when generators were running and making noise, and videos were also playing showing the religious pictures, with a view that at this time, sound of the fire from the country-made pistols will not reach to the peoples and accused-appellants will be able to execute their plan easily."

Credibility of Related and Interested Witnesses

Addressing the defense's argument regarding the use of 'interested witnesses', the Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Another ( "(1981) 2 SCC 752": 1981 CaseBase(SC) 125) to clarify that 'related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. The Court emphasized that family members are often the most natural witnesses to such crimes. The bench further cited Harbans Kaur and Another v. State of Haryana ( "(2005) 9 SCC 195": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 889) and Sucha Singh and Another v. State of Punjab ( "(2003) 7 SCC 643": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 1764) to reinforce that the credibility of a witness is not automatically affected by their relationship with the deceased, provided their testimony is cogent and credible.

Regarding minor inconsistencies in the evidence, the Court referred to Brahm Swaroop and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2011) 6 SCC 288": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 697), noting that trivial discrepancies do not prompt the rejection of evidence in its entirety if the core of the prosecution's case remains intact.

Forensic Evidence and Court's Decision

The Forensic Science Laboratory report played a pivotal role, matching the empty cartridges found at the scene with the country-made pistols recovered at the pointing out of the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Court has the following directions:

"In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. The appellants, Maheshwari Prasad and Adarsh @ Chandrabhan Rajpoot, are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court along with the Trial Court records forthwith for necessary compliance."

Background:

The dispute originated on the night of October 4, 2005, in Kasba Muskara, Hamirpur. The informant, Watan Singh, alleged that his nephew, Maheshwari Prasad, along with his sons Adarsh and Neeraj, murdered Vishwanath (Maheshwari’s father), Neelibai (Maheshwari’s mother), and Mahesh (Maheshwari’s brother). The motive was a combination of an illicit relationship between Mahesh and Maheshwari’s wife, Asha, and a long-standing land dispute.

The Trial Court had previously convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court, after reviewing the records and arguments, found no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's judgment, noting that the weapons recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellants were indeed the ones used in the commission of the crime.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1133 of 2009
Case Title: Maheshwari Prasad and another Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Rajrshi Gupta, Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, D.S. Parmar, Manish Tiwary (Senior Adv.), Rizwan Ahamad, S.M. Haider Zaidi, Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
For the Respondent(s): Govt. Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 196