LUDHIYA SURIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dtd. 14/3/2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 245/2017 (GR Case No. 1064/2017) corresponding to Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 35/2017 convicting the appellant under Ss. 302/201 IPC [corresponding to Sec. 103/238 of BNS] and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two months for the offence under S. 201 IPC.

(2.) The facts concerned are very unfortunate and shocking which involves the death of a 1 year old infant and the accusation is against the mother who is the appellant.

(3.) The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 31/3/2017 by the husband of the appellant, who is the father of the deceased. He had stated that in the previous evening, i.e., on 30/3/2017, when he had come home after playing volleyball at about 7 p.m., he had found his 1 year old son missing. Accordingly, he had made a search with the co-villagers but did not find him. In the next morning at about 5.30 a.m., he got suspicious about the appellant and accordingly followed her and found her concealing the dead body of the deceased in a small pit by covering it with leaves and branches near a small jackfruit tree behind their house. On going there, he had recovered the body of the deceased and started to cry out loud after which, the villagers had gathered. When the appellant was questioned, she had confessed that she had killed their 1 year old son by pouring hot water on him and hitting him hard on his forehead with a stone. Accordingly, the Ejahar was registered leading to Jamuguri P.S. Case No.35/2017 under Sec. 302 of the IPC[corresponding to Sec. 103 of BNS].The investigation was accordingly done whereafter the charge-sheet was laid. The learned Trial Court had accordingly framed the charges under Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 201 of the IPC [corresponding to Sec. 103/238 of BNS] and on denial thereof, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of witnesses.