The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on Thursday upheld the conviction of Jitendra Pal, who had challenged his life sentence for the 2015 murder of his wife, Anita. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary took time to scrutinise every layer of evidence, and after hearing both sides at length, concluded that the trial court’s findings required no interference. The atmosphere inside Court No. 9 felt tense at moments, especially when the bench questioned gaps in the defence’s version.
Background
The case dates back to March 2015, when Anita’s body was found in a wheat field near Teliyani village in Unnao. Her mother, Kunta Devi, lodged a complaint alleging that Anita had been last seen leaving with her husband the previous night. According to the prosecution, Jitendra was upset with his wife over her objections to his alleged relationship with another woman, known locally as “Guddi.”
The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000. His appeal-pending since 2017-was argued extensively before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench carefully weighed the circumstantial evidence. The judges went through witness statements, the medical report, call detail records, and the recovery of broken bangles from the crime spot.
The bench noted that the post-mortem clearly established homicide, not suicide. “The medical officer has categorically ruled out the possibility of self-strangulation,” the bench recorded.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle
What seemed to trouble the court most was the absence of any sensible explanation from the accused. When asked under Section 313 CrPC how his wife died, he simply denied everything. The judges remarked, “When the husband is the protector, his silence and failure to explain incriminatory circumstances adds another link to the chain of guilt.”
On the much-debated “last seen” factor, the court found Raju Pal’s testimony consistent. He was a natural witness from the same village and had no reason to falsely implicate Jitendra. Minor inconsistencies in timing were brushed aside as normal human memory lapses.
The bench also referred to the accused’s behaviour after the incident. He neither informed authorities about his missing wife nor participated in the inquest proceedings. “Such conduct is a relevant circumstance under the Evidence Act,” the court observed.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
The defence argued hard that motive wasn’t proved and that the alleged affair was only hearsay. But the court clarified that motive strengthens a case, yet its absence does not destroy the prosecution’s chain if other evidence is strong.
In a sharply worded remark, the judges said, “The chain of circumstances leaves no room for another hypothesis.”
Decision
After analysing all material on record, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence. The bench concluded:
“The conviction does not warrant interference. The appellant shall undergo the sentence awarded.”
Case Title: Jitendra Pal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2259 of 2017
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (against conviction under Section 302 IPC)
Decision Date: 27 November 2025
