Meerut Court Awards Death Penalty to Couple for Strangling Husband, Staging Snakebite Deat [Read Order]

Meerut: The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut, has sentenced Amardeep and Ravita to death for murdering Ravita’s husband, Amit Kashyap, by strangling him in his sleep and then placing a snake on his cot to make his death appear to be a snakebite.

Convicting them on 07.10.2026 on circumstantial evidence, the Court held the chain of circumstances complete and, on 16.10.2026, found the case to be one of the “rarest of rare”, making the death sentence subject to confirmation by the Allahabad High Court.

Judge Jaiveer Singh Nagar was hearing Sessions Trial No. 752 of 2025, arising out of Crime No. 67/2025, Police Station Bahsuma, Meerut, in which Amardeep, aged 22, and Ravita, aged 25, were tried under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The charges were framed on 29.09.2025 and the judgment was reserved on 24.09.2026.

As recorded by the Court, the FIR was lodged on 16.04.2025 on a complaint by the deceased’s brother, Monu Kashyap, saying Ravita had a long-standing illicit relationship with Amardeep, that they quarrelled over it on 12.04.2025, and that on the morning of 13.04.2025 Amit was found dead on his cot with a live snake beside him and marks on his neck and face.

The defence argued that the death was due to snakebite, that there was no direct evidence, that the mother’s last-seen account was an improvement on her earlier statement, that the snake was never produced, and that Amardeep was elsewhere that night.

The Court held that the post-mortem report, proved by the doctor, showed fracture of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage, which occur from forcible strangulation, with death caused by throttling and smothering around half to one day before the examination, and the FSL report showed no poison. It found that the family’s initial belief in a snakebite did not displace the medical evidence.

On the chain of circumstances, the Court relied on the deceased’s mother, who said she saw Amardeep going to the house between 3 and 4 a.m., and found her statement corroborated by call detail records, proved with Section 63(4) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam certificates. They showed seven calls between Amardeep and Ravita on the evening of 12.04.2025 totalling 852 seconds, and a call at 1.50 a.m. with Amardeep’s location near the deceased’s house, within the estimated time of death. It rejected the alibi witness as unreliable against this documentary evidence, noting that documents do not lie.

Two snake handlers deposed that Amardeep took a snake from one of them about seven months earlier on the pretext of a religious function, and two independent villagers deposed that they caught the snake from beneath the deceased on the morning of 13.04.2025. The Court held that the non-production of the snake or its photographs did not cast doubt on its recovery, as it could not be sealed and kept like a document, and that the illicit relationship established motive.

The Court held that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate under Section 157 CrPC was not fatal absent shown prejudice, citing Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2019 SC 519. It held that the test for circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda was met, as the last-seen evidence, motive and the snake all pointed to the accused, who placed the snake to destroy evidence, and convicted both.

The Court opened its sentencing order with two Sanskrit verses. The first, Manusmriti, Chapter 7 (Rajdharma), verse 22, says that the whole world is kept under control by the fear of punishment, and that without it the wicked would devour the virtuous. The second, from the Atreya Samhita, verse 26, lists the five qualities of a just order as punishing the wicked, honouring the virtuous, enriching the State by just policy, treating those who seek justice without partiality, and protecting the nation. Later, the Court cited Mahabharata Shanti Parva 15/3, which says that when the ruler punishes according to the principles of penal policy, all dharmas flourish and dharma does not decline. It also invoked the scriptural description of the wife as ardhangini and dharmapatni, the verse “yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata”, and the story of Savitri and Satyavan, to say that the crime was a betrayal of the sacred marital bond.

On sentence, the prosecution sought death, calling the crime heinous and a betrayal of trust, while the defence urged life imprisonment citing the absence of criminal history, the accused’s age, and Ravita’s three children. After applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines, the Court held the crime was a pre-planned conspiracy under cover of marriage and trust against a helpless sleeping victim, followed by an attempt to disguise it as snakebite and mislead the judicial process, and recorded, in translation:

“A sentence of life imprisonment would be inadequate for the convicts Amardeep and Ravita, and no option other than the death penalty appears justified.”

Both were sentenced to death under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5), with a fine of Rs 25,000 each (five months’ additional imprisonment in default), and to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 20,000 each under Section 238. The Court directed that the case be sent to the Allahabad High Court for confirmation under Section 407 of the BNSS, informed them of the 30-day appeal period under Section 404, and directed the fines, after the appeal period, be paid to the deceased’s parents, who are caring for Ravita’s three children. It also directed the District Magistrate to ensure the children’s education and health and benefits under State schemes.

Appearances:

For the State: Ms. Farzana Maksood, ADGC.

For the Complainant: Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate.

For the Accused: Mr. Omkar Singh Bhati, Advocate.

Case Title: State of U.P. vs. Amardeep & Anr., Sessions Trial No. 752 of 2025, convicted 07.10.2026, sentenced 16.10.2026

[Read Order]