Allahabad High Court upholds life sentence for 2009 Hardoi quadruple killing

Indian Opinion DeskIndian Opinion DeskPolitics1 month ago8 Views

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, dismissed the appeal of Vinay Pratap Singh, alias Bablu, against his 2014…

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, dismissed the appeal of Vinay Pratap Singh, alias Bablu, against his 2014 conviction for killing four people in Hardoi in 2009, Hindustan Times reported. The trial court had convicted Singh under sections 302, 307 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. His victims were his live-in partner Babita, an anganwadi worker, her mother Nandrani, and Babita's two children, all found dead with nooses tied around their necks on the morning of 24 June 2009, post-mortem findings in each case pointed to ante-mortem ligature strangulation. Singh's appeal argued the case rested only on circumstantial evidence, with no direct witness, an incomplete chain of circumstances, a doubtful last-seen theory and a false implication rooted in a property dispute, but the bench, ruling on 27 July, held that every incriminating circumstance the prosecution relied on stood proved.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Four Deaths Case

Indian Opinion Analysis

This account traces to a single outlet, Hindustan Times, though a High Court judgment is a public record in its own right rather than a contested claim that needs a second voice to confirm it. The bench's stated reasoning is that the trial court had correctly appreciated the oral, documentary and medical evidence and that every incriminating circumstance the prosecution relied on stood proved, the grounds Singh raised, circumstantial evidence alone, an incomplete chain, a doubtful last-seen theory and false implication in a property dispute, are recorded as rejected rather than answered one by one. Any further appeal against the 27 July dismissal would be the next step on the record in this case.


Source: Hindustan Times

This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.

Ask their opinion on this story
They have read this article, our coverage, and the web.
AI simulations of historical figures. Responses are generated from the historical record, not authentic statements.

0 Votes: 0 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes (0 Points)

Share your opinion

Loading Next Post...
Search Trending
Ask their opinion
Loading

Signing-in 3 seconds...

Signing-up 3 seconds...

All fields are required.