Gauhati High Court Modifies Life Term To 7 Years In Wife’s Death Case | ‘Fist Blows Do Not Establish Intent To Kill’ And Rules Out Murder Conviction
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Marli Vankung held that the evidence on record did not conclusively establish an intention to cause death and accordingly modified the appellant’s conviction from Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS] to Section 304 Part II IPC [corresponding to Section 105 BNS]. The Court observed that the death of the victim was caused due to injuries inflicted by the appellant through fist blows, which, although fatal, did not clearly demonstrate the intent necessary to sustain a murder conviction. The Bench directed that the appellant undergoes rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000, with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment.
While upholding the findings regarding culpability, the Court noted inconsistencies in medical and inquest reports, absence of weapon use, and lack of proven motive. The decision was taken after careful consideration of evidence, including extra-judicial confessions, medical reports, and the appellant’s statements under Section 313 CrPC. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed with a modification of conviction and sentence.
The criminal proceedings arose from an incident dated 19.10.2014, when the appellant allegedly assaulted his wife, who was three months pregnant. An Ejahar was filed the following day by the deceased's brother, alleging repeated assaults by the appellant since shortly after marriage, culminating in the fatal incident. It was alleged that the accused attempted to flee but was apprehended by the local public and handed over to the police.
Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered as Teok Police Station Case No. 324/14 under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was initiated and subsequently led to the filing of a charge sheet. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 IPC. Upon denial of charges, the trial commenced.
Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW1, the informant and brother of the deceased, testified about prior instances of assault and claimed that the accused confessed to the act and administered medicine afterward. He identified injuries on the victim's face.
PW2, the mother of the deceased, corroborated PW1's version and added that the appellant had confessed, stating that he beat the deceased because she was not taking her medicine.
PW3, a neighbour, stated she did not witness any assaults and did not know the cause of death.
PW4, the father of the appellant, claimed that the deceased died from medicine consumption and denied any torture. He was declared hostile.
PW5, another local resident, testified about the appellant’s prior quarrels with the deceased and about a confession that the appellant killed the victim by punching and assaulting her head. He also noted injury marks on her neck.
PW6, the medical officer, conducted the post-mortem examination. He stated: "In my opinion, death of the deceased was due to coma as a result of the head injury. All injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt weapon which was homicidal in nature." He clarified in cross-examination that the deceased was not pregnant.
PW7, a night guard, stated that he was informed about the incident by the deceased’s brother and heard a confession from the appellant that he assaulted the victim. He added that the appellant was apprehended from a nearby garden.
PW8, another local resident, confirmed that he found the deceased lying dead and the appellant trying to escape. He observed injuries near her eye.
PW9’s testimony was deemed irrelevant.
PW10, the Investigating Officer, detailed the procedural steps and stated that the appellant confessed during interrogation. He also confirmed that PW4 was declared hostile and admitted contradictions in statements under Section 161 CrPC.
During examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied the charges and claimed the deceased consumed poison and died after falling. He also denied fleeing.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000, with a default imprisonment of six months.
The High Court noted: "The present case does not rest on direct evidence from eyewitnesses but is founded on circumstantial evidence. Consequently, it is essential to examine whether the conviction and sentence were based on a finding that the chain of circumstances is complete in all respects."
On extra-judicial confession, the Court stated: "The extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution." Citing precedents, the Court laid out principles including voluntariness, credibility, and corroboration by other prosecution evidence.
Regarding the injuries, the Court compared the Inquest and PM reports: "Observation in the Inquest Report of finding injury mark on the right cheek near eye cannot be held to be grossly inconsistent with the findings in the PM report." The Court explained that the Inquest Report is preliminary while PM reports are detailed.
The Bench held: "The duty cast upon the prosecution is to prove the complicity of the accused, and the witnesses examined in the present case are adequate to fulfil this requirement."
On Section 106 Evidence Act applicability, the Court recorded: "The deceased and the appellant not only lived under the same roof but shared a room, in which the deceased was found dead with fatal injuries to her face and head."
Referring to the appellant’s own statements, the Court noted: "He had explained that he had given a fist blow and subsequently administered medicine, after which the deceased had consumed poison and passed away." The Court rejected the poisoning claim due to lack of supporting evidence.
Citing Paul vs. State of Kerala, the Bench noted: "A statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC even if it contains inculpatory admissions cannot be ignored and the court may... proceed to enter a verdict of guilt."
On motive, the Court recorded: "Though in the case of Ramanand... it has been held that absence of motive may not be fatal... the said issue would be required to be examined so far as the aspect of sentencing is concerned."
Regarding classification of offence, the Court explained the distinction between Section 302 and 304 IPC, citing multiple Supreme Court judgements. It stated: "From the facts and circumstances discussed above, the intention of the appellant to cause death, or even the knowledge that death was a probable consequence... cannot be readily inferred."
The Court thus concluded that: "The impugned judgment and order... is warrants modification. The conviction made is liable to be altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC."
The Division Bench directed: "The conviction made is liable to be altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC [corresponding to Section 105 BNS] which is accordingly done."
It further directed: "Consequently, the sentence is altered to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand), and in default of which, simple imprisonment for three months."
The appeal was accordingly partly allowed. The Court also ordered: "Let the TCRs be sent back."
Additionally, the Bench recorded: "We record our valuable appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri A. Kalita, the learned Amicus Curiae and he shall be entitled to the prescribed fee."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri A. Kalita, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Ms. A. Begum, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam
Case Title: Sajan Mura vs. The State of Assam
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:7527
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/5/2020
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Marli Vankung
[Read/Download order]
