Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 408 (GAU)

Dipika Ray v. State of Assam

2013-06-13

B.D.AGARWAL, N.CHAUDHURY

body2013
B.D. Agarwal,J The appellant herein has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC vide judgment dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 57(B) of 2008 and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 with default stipulation of further RI for three months. 2. We have heard Mrs. R.D. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae and Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., for the State. Also perused the impugned judgment and the prosecution evidence as well as the judicial confession of the appellant. 3. The appellant is none else but the paternal aunt of the victim child who was only nine days new born baby. The prosecution case is that the accused was staying in the same compound of the informant. On 31.8.2003 at about 8.30 a.m. the appellant dealt a 'dao' blow on the neck of the child causing his instantaneous death. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended by the inmates of the house and the FIR was lodged by the father on the same day. 4. After the investigation the accused was found guilty for the offence of murder and she has been accordingly convicted. Most of the witnesses are members of the same family and they have tried to give favourable testimonies as much as possible in favour of the appellant. In other words, none of the witnesses from the family have claimed that they had seen the appellant actually dealing with 'dao' blow. However, PW 2 has deposed that she saw the accused throwing a 'dao' which fell down on the body of the child. Thereafter, the accused tried to flee away. Other witnesses have also deposed that after the incident the accused admitted to flee away but she was overpowered. 5. Be that as it may, in her statement under section 313 of the Cr.PC as well as in the confessional statement the appellant has admitted that she had killed the child by inflicting a 'dao' blow. During autopsy the doctor also found one deep cut wound extending from left cheek to neck on the back, which had cut the cervical vertebra as well as spinal cord. In view of this evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue for clean acquittal of the appellant. During autopsy the doctor also found one deep cut wound extending from left cheek to neck on the back, which had cut the cervical vertebra as well as spinal cord. In view of this evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue for clean acquittal of the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for converting the offence from sections 302, IPC to 304 of the IPC. 6. Section 304 is divided in two parts. In the first part the offence of culpable homicide would attract sections 304, IPC, if an offence is committed with intention to cause death or causing such bodily injury, which is likely to cause death. Second part of section 304, IPC would attract the offences which are done with the knowledge that the offence is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In our considered opinion, inflicting 'dao' blow with full force cutting cervical vertebra as well as spinal cord would definitely indicate that the assailant had inflicted the 'dao' blow with an intention to cause fatal injury, which in ordinary course of nature may cause death of a person. 7. In the case before us, the child was only nine days old and a single assault would have been sufficient to take his life. In view of the above, the offence is reduced under section 304, Part-I and sentence is reduced to seven years RI. However, the amount of fine with default stipulation as awarded by the trial court is maintained. 8. With the modification of the conviction and sentence the appeal stands dismissed. 9. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to modify the custody warrant on receipt of the copy of this judgment. 10. It is ordered that Mrs. R.D. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae shall be entitled to one day's hearing fee for her variable assistance. _______________