Child Who Saw Father Kill Pregnant Mother Through Window Credible And Unimpeached, Life Imprisonment Upheld: Calcutta High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Calcutta High Court Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay has upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted for the murder of his wife, who was 18 weeks pregnant at the time of her death. The court found that the sole eyewitness — the couple's minor son, who witnessed the assault through a window — gave credible and voluntary testimony that withstood cross-examination without contradiction. Dismissing the appeal against the trial court's conviction under the Indian Penal Code's provision on murder, the bench concluded that the prosecution had established its case through the quality of evidence on record.
The appeal arose from a prosecution case that on 21 January 2014 the victim was assaulted by her husband in the matrimonial home. The victim’s father received information from the couple’s second son that the appellant had killed the victim. A complaint was then lodged stating that the couple had been married for about ten years and that the victim had been subjected to torture in connection with demands for money from her parental home. Police reached the place of occurrence, recovered a blood-stained nylon rope and a blood-stained sabol (shovel), arrested the appellant there, and sent the body for inquest and postmortem.
During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, including the statement of the couple’s second son before a Magistrate. The child witness stated at trial that he saw the appellant assault the victim with a sabol and then tie a nylon rope around her neck and drag her. The victim’s father proved the complaint and identified the seized articles. The postmortem doctor found multiple injuries, fracture of the hyoid bone, and a dead fetus of approximately 18 weeks, and opined that death was due to throttling and was homicidal. Charges were framed under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC. The defence questioned the reliability of the child witness, the absence of neighbour witnesses to the occurrence, the sketch map, and the lighting conditions at the time of the incident.
The Court examined whether the testimony of the child witness could safely be relied on and referred to the test of voluntariness and the principles on tutoring. It stated, “While appreciating the testimony of a child witness the courts are required to assess whether the evidence of such witness is its voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others and whether the testimony inspires confidence……” The Court then recorded, “Thus, there was no scope for tutoring.” It also stated, “The statement of PW 2 was recorded by the police and magistrate without any delay.”
On the defence allegation that the child witness had been influenced because he was staying with the victim’s family, the Court recorded, “PW 2 was residing with the family of the victim out of necessity.” It further stated, “This would not, ipso facto, render the evidence of PW 2 unreliable.” The Court also observed, “PW 2 had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was his own father.” It noted that the witness had named the appellant immediately after the incident and stated, “There was no time for anyone to tutor him.”
The Court considered the evidentiary value of the testimony alongside the medical evidence. It recorded, “The evidence of the sole eye-witness and star witness of the prosecution has withstood the test of common sense and cross examination. The same stands unimpeached.” On the postmortem findings, it stated, “The fracture of the hyoid bone beyond reasonable doubt establishes a case of throttling.” It then recorded, “The evidence of PW-6, Dr. Joydipta Chattapadhyay thus substantially corroborates the evidence of PW-2, the sole eye-witness, that the appellant assaulted the victim repeatedly with a sabol and thereafter tied a nylon rope around her neck and dragged her for some time with a view to throttling her.”
On the defence objections regarding non-examination of neighbours, the sketch map, and visibility, the Court stated, “the quantity/number of the witnesses is irrelevant to the authenticity of the case of the prosecution.” It added, “such a minor omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to describe the toilet is not so serious as to demolish the prosecution case.” On the question of light, the Court recorded, “The evidence of PW 2 therefore cannot be doubted.”
The Court directed: “Having regard to the above, CRA 495 of 2017 fails and hereby dismissed. Consequently, all connected pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Let the TCR along with a copy of this judgement be returned back to the trial Court for necessary action. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Md. Ashraf Ali, Mr. Partha Sarkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Saibal Bapuli, ld. A.P.P., Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Ms. Sayanti Santra
Case Title: Ram Chandra Pramanik Versus The State of West Bengal
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:367-DB
Case Number: C.R.A. 495 of 2017
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
