Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence | Child Witness Deemed 'Clear, Specific, Cogent And Reliable' In Brutal Murder Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to a man convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife. Dismissing the criminal appeal filed from jail under Section 383 CrPC, the Court upheld the trial court's findings and held that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond reasonable doubt. It directed that the trial court records be returned and ordered the concerned District Legal Services Authority to ensure compensation under Section 357A CrPC to the minor child of the deceased, if not already disbursed.
The case arose from a criminal appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 18 January 2018, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, in Sessions Case No. 257/2014. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine.
The incident, reported on 10 November 2013, involved the appellant hacking his wife to death with a dao in their home, as alleged in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. The couple’s minor daughter, approximately four years old at the time, was the only person present in the house and informed her maternal grandfather immediately after the incident.
The Palashbari Police Station registered a case based on this information, following which an investigation was launched, and a chargesheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC. During the trial, eleven prosecution witnesses were examined, including medical personnel, investigating officers, and several family members and neighbours.
The defence argued that the minor daughter’s testimony (PW-9) was unreliable due to her young age and the possibility of tutoring, especially since she began living with the maternal family post-incident. It also contested that the child was not initially listed as a prosecution witness in the chargesheet and was introduced under Section 311 CrPC during the trial without her prior statement being recorded under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC. The trial court, however, accepted her competency to testify after preliminary questioning.
The appellant also raised a plea of alibi, claiming he was in Chhaygaon during the incident, and denied the charges under Section 313 CrPC. He did not adduce any defence evidence.
The medical examiner (PW-3) confirmed the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock due to chop wounds caused by a moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon. The post-mortem injuries matched the narrative provided by the minor witness and corroborated the testimony of family and local witnesses who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident.
The prosecution relied on the legal principle that a child witness can be considered competent if capable of understanding the nature of questions and giving rational answers. Judicial precedents including P Ramesh v State, Sanjay Vasant Kadam v State of Maharashtra, and K.P. Tamilmaran v The State supported the admissibility and credibility of a child’s testimony when found reliable and untainted by tutoring.
The Court recorded that “from the arguments advanced by the learned amicus curiae, it is seen that the question of admissibility of the evidence of the child witness has been raised as the testimony of the child witness/PW-9 is one of the basis on which the learned Trial Court has reached the finding of guilt.”
The Court observed: “PW-9 is a natural eye witness as it is completely normal for a 4-year-old child to be with her parents in their house in the evening.” It also stated: “The testimony of PW-9 is found to be very clear, specific, cogent and reliable. Even in the cross-examination her testimony remains steadfast and the defence could not demolish her testimony and her testimony has inspired the confidence of the court.”
On the issue of competency, the Court stated: “It was only after PW-9 was found to be able to understand the questions put to her and after PW-9 had provided rational answers to them, the learned Trial Court had reached the satisfaction as regards her suitability and competency to depose about the events.”
The Court found the defence argument regarding absence of prior examination of PW-9 under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC to be untenable. Referring to the applicable legal position, the Court recorded: “There is a wide discretion with the courts under Section 311 CrPC and this power can be exercised suo moto… If the court finds that a person who should have been examined as a prosecution witness is omitted... such a person can be examined as a prosecution witness.”
Regarding corroboration, the Court held: “The injuries on the dead body clearly indicate that it is a case of homicide… The dao was recovered at the P.O and seizure was proved in accordance with law and corresponds with the P.M Report which states that the injuries were caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon.”
The Division Bench, upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record, found no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. It recorded that the testimony of PW-9 was trustworthy, reliable, and natural, having been corroborated on all material aspects by both oral and documentary evidence.
The Bench found the testimony to be credible and capable of inspiring confidence. It concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the offence.
Accordingly, the Court held the criminal appeal to be devoid of merit and directed its dismissal. Further, the Court directed the concerned District Legal Services Authority to ensure that compensation under Section 357A CrPC be disbursed expeditiously if it had not already been released. It also ordered that the records of the Trial Court be returned.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Kalita, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mr. R. R. Kaushik, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Sadnam Rabha @ Satram Rabha v The State of Assam
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:7421-DB
Case No.: CRL.A(J)/6/2022
Bench: Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer
[Read/Download order]
