Child Who Saw Mother Being Killed Is A Victim Too: Calcutta High Court Convicts Husband, Family In 2006 Murder Case

The Calcutta High Court has reversed the acquittal of a husband and four of his relatives in a 2006 murder case, holding that the trial court committed "fundamental errors" in discarding the testimony of the couple's minor son, who had witnessed his mother's death.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay convicted husband Samir Das, his brother Samar Das, sister-in-law Sabita Das, relative Sanjay Pramanik and Jharna Pramanik for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The husband was also convicted under Section 498A IPC for subjecting his wife to cruelty.

The Court sentenced all five convicts to rigorous life imprisonment for 24 years for murder and imposed a fine of ₹50,000 each. The husband was additionally sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A and fined ₹25,000. The convicts have been directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks.

The appeal had been preferred by the de facto complainant challenging a 2017 trial court judgment acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 302/34 IPC.

According to the prosecution, the victim was repeatedly assaulted and was forcibly administered poison by her husband with the assistance of his relatives. The prosecution case rested substantially on the testimony of the couple's minor son (PW-3), who deposed that he had hidden under a bed while witnessing his father assault his mother, force poison into her mouth, and other accused assist in the incident.

Trial Court's Findings Were Perverse

The High Court found that the trial court had wrongly rejected the child's testimony on the assumption that the medical evidence did not disclose injuries on the victim.

Disagreeing, the Bench pointed out that the post-mortem report actually recorded multiple bruises, nail scratch abrasions, blunt-force injuries and wrist bruising, all of which corroborated the child's account of assault.

"The aforesaid finding of the Trial judge is contrary to the post mortem report. The said finding is therefore perverse," the Court observed while holding that the injuries were consistent with repeated assault by multiple persons before poison was administered.

The Bench further held that the trial court had misread several aspects of the evidence, including its assumption that the child could not have remained awake or witnessed the occurrence after being awakened by loud knocking on the door.

Child Witness Must Be Viewed In Light Of Trauma

The High Court emphasised that the testimony of a child witness cannot be discarded merely because there was some delay in recording the statement or because the child later resided with maternal relatives.

Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court, including State of M.P. v. Ramesh and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, the Court observed that a child who witnesses the murder of his mother at the hands of close family members is equally a victim whose evidence must be appreciated in the context of his lived experience.

"The Court therefore has to examine the evidence of a child witness, who has lost his mother in the hands of his family members, by factoring in his lived realities after death of his mother. The Court should appreciate that the minor child having witnessed the death of his mother, is equally a victim," the Bench observed.

The Court also rejected the defence contention that the child had been tutored after moving to his maternal uncle's house, holding that while there may have been minor improvements, the substance of his account remained consistent throughout and withstood cross-examination.

Burden Shifted To Accused After Prosecution Established Presence

The Bench held that once the prosecution established that all accused were present in the matrimonial home when the victim consumed poison and later died, it became incumbent upon them to explain the circumstances leading to her death.

Observing that crimes committed within the privacy of a matrimonial home rarely have independent eyewitnesses, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra to hold that rigid insistence on direct evidence would defeat justice in such cases.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the common intention of all the accused through the testimony of the child witness, the conduct of the accused after the incident and the corroborative evidence of other prosecution witnesses.

Holding that the case was one of murder and not abetment of suicide, the Bench convicted all five accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the husband additionally under Section 498A IPC.

Case: Swapan Kumar Pramanick -Versus- Samir Das and Ors.

Case No: CRA 669 of 2017

Click here to read order