MOSTAFA AHMED(MD.) Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mostafa Ahmed has been convicted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his six month old son Yaminul Islam and for concealing the dead body and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, a further period of three months of rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Ejahar (Ext. 1) in the case was lodged by Asia Begum (PW- 1) on 26.04.2010 before the Badarpur Police Station, Badarpur stating that on the night of 21.04.2010 at about 2 A.M. while she was asleep with her six month old son Yaminul Islam in the house of the appellant, her son went missing. Athough she informed the matter to her husband i.e. the appellant and mother-in-law, they did not show any interest to search out the baby. She had informed the matter to her father through some villagers. The child was found dead in the pond of her husband's house. The appellant along with two others, named in the ejahar, were implicated with accusation that soon after the birth of Yaminul Islam, the accused persons had tortured her physically and mentally in various ways and that they have stolen her son and killed him. Based on the said ejahar Badarpur P.S. Case No. 56/2010 was registered under Section 363/302/201/34 I.P.C. and Sri M.A. Barb-huiya (PW-4), Sub Inspector of Police was entrusted to take up the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the appellant Mostafa Ahmed under Section 363 /302/201 I.P.C. and the case was committed to trial with formal charge being framed against the appellant under the aforesaid penal provisions. The charge having been read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty, whereafter the case was put to trial.

(3.) To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 4 (four) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. After close of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken with reference to the evidence that had come on record. The appellant denied his involvement stating that false allegations have been leveled against him. He also declined to adduce evidence by way of defence.