Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction, Holds Son Guilty of Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Mitali Thakuria held that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused assaulted his mother with a wooden object, causing a fatal head injury. However, the Court recorded that there was no premeditation to kill, and the act was not sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Bench, therefore, modified the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The Court set off the sentence against the period already undergone and retained the fine imposed by the trial court. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, and the modified sentence and conviction were directed to be implemented.
The case arose out of an incident reported on 10.06.2018, in which the accused, a resident of Pathalikuchi village under Tamulpur Police Station in Assam, allegedly assaulted his mother with a piece of wood, leading to her death. The First Information Report was lodged by the informant, who was the son of the deceased and brother of the accused. He stated that he had returned from Guwahati after learning that his mother had previously been assaulted by the accused on 06.06.2018, sustaining injuries on her eyes, knees, and forehead. On the evening of 10.06.2018, the accused reportedly struck the deceased on her head with a piece of wood, leading to her instant death.
Following registration of the FIR, the police began the investigation. The Officer-in-Charge of Tamulpur Police Station visited the place of occurrence, recorded statements of witnesses, and arranged for a post-mortem examination of the deceased. The investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused.
The trial commenced before the Sessions Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur, where the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including the informant, medical officer, and investigating officer. The defence declined to adduce evidence, and the accused denied the allegations during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.
The informant (P.W.5), the most vital witness, testified that he was present during the incident and witnessed the accused strike their mother with a wooden object. He also corroborated earlier instances of physical abuse by the accused, who, according to him, frequently assaulted his mother under the influence of alcohol.
Several other witnesses, including P.Ws 1 to 4, supported the prosecution's case, stating that they had seen the deceased with visible injuries days prior to her death and arrived at the scene after hearing the informant's cries on the day of the incident. While most witnesses admitted to not witnessing the actual assault, they confirmed that the accused was seen fleeing the scene and that a wooden object, allegedly used in the assault, was recovered near the house of the accused.
The Medical Officer (P.W.10), who conducted the post-mortem, testified that the deceased sustained a laceration on the occipital parietal region, abrasions on the knees and cheek, and ecchymosis over the eyes. The cause of death was determined as coma resulting from head injury caused by a blunt force object.
The Investigating Officer (P.W.11) confirmed that the accused was apprehended three to four days after the incident and led the police to the recovery of the murder weapon, a wooden piece found in a heap of wood. However, no bloodstains were discovered on the weapon, and no forensic examination was conducted.
The defence raised several objections, including the absence of eyewitnesses, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and lack of motive. It was also submitted that no confessional statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the statements made by prosecution witnesses regarding extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible as they were allegedly made in the presence of police officers.
The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. He sought acquittal or, alternatively, a modification of the conviction.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, asserted that the evidence of P.W.5 and corroborative testimonies established the prosecution's case. She submitted that minor contradictions did not affect the reliability of the core evidence and referred to judicial precedents to support the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions when made voluntarily and in the absence of enmity.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.
The Court recorded: “The presence of P.W-5 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of the incident is not disputed, and his evidence regarding his presence at the time of the incident could not be rebutted by the defence.”
It further noted: “P.W-5 saw the accused/appellant fleeing from the house with a piece of wood in his hand, and at the same time, he saw his mother lying injured, having sustained a head injury while sitting on the verandah.”
On the circumstances of the crime, the Court observed: “Soon after the incident, the accused/appellant fled, and he was apprehended by the police only after 3/4 days.”
On the seizure and confession, the Bench stated: “The seizure witnesses corroborated each other’s statements, confirming that the accused led the police to the discovery of the murder weapon.” It also recorded that “the murder weapon, a piece of wood, was seized and exhibited as material evidence. The seizure witnesses duly identified it before the Court.”
The Court further stated: “The earlier incident of 06.06.2018 is also proven by witnesses, as they testified that the accused assaulted his mother, causing injuries to her. It is also established that he frequently quarreled with and assaulted his mother under the influence of alcohol.”
While discussing the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC, the Court noted: “So, the question arises: if his mother had indeed been injured due to a fall, why did he immediately flee from the scene? Instead of providing her with medical treatment, he fled while carrying a piece of wood in his hand, further supports the conclusion that he assaulted his mother by striking her on the head with it.”
The Division Bench addressed the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, stating: “It is an established fact that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and is not legally acceptable unless made in the presence of credible witnesses.”
It continued: “However, the statements of P.W. Nos. 7, 8, and 9 could not be rebutted by the defence regarding their presence at the time of the accused/appellant’s confession. Moreover, these witnesses had no prior grudge against the accused/appellant that would have motivated them to falsely testify about his confession.”
“Based on the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully established, through circumstantial evidence, that the accused/appellant assaulted his mother with a piece of wood, striking a vital part of her body, specifically on her head, leading to her death.”
However, the Court differentiated the case from murder, holding: “From the discussion above, it is evident that the accused/appellant had given only a single blow with a piece of wood. Had his intention been to kill his mother, he would have given more blows or used a sharper or heavier weapon.”
“It appears that the accused/appellant had no premeditated mind to commit murder, but the victim died due to the grievous head injury inflicted by him.”
Accordingly, the Court held: “We hold that the case against the accused/appellant is established under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with the same fine that was previously imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa which shall remain unaltered. The period of imprisonment shall be set off against the time already served, as per the punishment awarded by this Court.”
“With these observations, this criminal jail appeal stands disposed of.”
“We sincerely acknowledge the service rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. The Registry shall pay the remuneration as per the entitlement upon production of a copy of this judgment and order.”
“Send down the record of the learned Court below immediately with a copy of this judgment. The Registry shall serve a free copy of this judgment and order to the appellant through the jailor concerned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. J. Das, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Ms. A. Begum, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam
Case Title: Biren Ch. Das v. The State of Assam
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:5095-DB
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/43/2021
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Mitali Thakuria
[Read/Download order]
