Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 57 (GAU)

Monika Rajkhowa v. State of Assam

2017-01-11

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. The sole appellant Monika Rajkhowa has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 19.9.2010, the appellant throttled her male child Partha Pratim Rajkhowa to death. On the date of incident, the child was 11 months old. And when appellant’s daughter Pallavi Rajkhowa (PW-3) on hearing a sound of something falling, entered inside the house, she was chased away by her. Also, when husband Putul Rajkhowa (PW-1) of appellant, tried to take the child to hospital, she prevented him from doing so. Putul Rajkhowa immediately made ejahar exhibit 1 at Bordoloni Police Out Post against the appellant. The ejahar was forwarded to Police Station Gogamukh, where it was registered as First Information Report. Investigating Officer - Bikash Kumar Kalita (PW-9), on receiving the ejahar, ensured inquest report exhibit 2 of the dead body of child was made by an Executive Magistrate - Monoranjan Payeng (PW-12) in the presence of witnesses – Krishna Rajkhowa (PW-5) and Janmoni Rajkhowa (PW-6). Bikash Kumar Kalita then referred the body of child for post mortem examination. 3. Dr. Khagen Doley (PW-11) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of child Pratha Pratim Rajkhowa. He found ecchymosis marks on both sides of neck and the marks resembled with finger like structure. On dissection of neck, the doctor found underlying edematous and fracture on hyoid bone. The doctor in his post mortem examination report opined that the cause of death of child was cardio pulmonary failure due to airway obstruction following throttling and that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. His post mortem examination report in this regard is exhibit 4. 4. At the stage of framing of charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty, but while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she admitted killing her child Partha Pratim Rajkhowa and that she also prevented Putul Rajkhowa (her husband) from taking the child to hospital. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The finding of Dr. Khagen Doley that the child died due to throttling was not questioned by the appellant. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The finding of Dr. Khagen Doley that the child died due to throttling was not questioned by the appellant. As seen above, Putul Rajkhowa is father of child and husband of the appellant and when he tried to take the child to hospital, the appellant prevented him from doing so. Even his evidence against the appellant has not been questioned by her. Pallavi Rajkhowa is the daughter of appellant and Putul Rajkhowa. She is thus also the sister of child and was naturally present in the house on the date of incident. According to her evidence, on the date of incident, the appellant and the child were inside the house and on hearing the sound of something falling, she rushed inside, but she was chased away by her mother (appellant). Nothing has been suggested in the cross examination of this witness as to why she would depose against the appellant. Jirtha Rajkhowa (PW-4) and Krishna Rajkhowa (PW-5) are known to the appellant. They have deposed that Pallavi Rajkhowa had told them that child was killed by the appellant. Apart from this, as seen above, the appellant herself has admitted, while being examined as an accused, that she did kill the child and prevented Putul Rajkhowa from taking the child to hospital. All these circumstances as well as the admission of the appellant lead us to only one conclusion that she alone was the perpetrator of crime. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence in holding her guilty of committing the murder of her child Partha Pratim Rajkhowa. 6. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.