‘He took two lives’: Why Calcutta High Court called this man a ‘cold-blooded killer’ while upholding his life term

The division bench noted that 10-year-old son had no reason to falsely implicate his own father and that his testimony remained unimpeached throughout cross-examination.

The bench remarked that the petitioner did not stop after assaulting his wife repeatedly with a shovel.

The order contined that he tied a nylon rope around her neck and dragged her for some time, clearly with a view to strangling her and ending her life, which lasted 20 to 30 minutes, clearly indicating that the incident did not occur in the “heat of the moment”.

Case of ‘reckless’ and ‘inhuman’ murder

• The incident occurred on the morning of January 21, 2014, when the petitioner assaulted his wife following a history of domestic torture related to dowry demands.
• The son of the victim informed the victim’s father over the phone that the petitioner-husband had killed the victim.
• The father of the victim sent his wife to the place of occurrence, and he went to the police station to register a complaint. The complaint stated that the appellant was married to the victim.
• The complaint stated that the torture was the result of the failure of the victim to bring money, demanded by the husband, from her paternal home.
• According to the complaint, the victim, who was 18 weeks pregnant at the time, was repeatedly struck with a shovel and subsequently strangled with a nylon rope.
• The trial court in Howrah had previously convicted Pramanik under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC in March 2017, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,000.

Role of the child witness

• A pivotal element of the prosecution’s case was the testimony of the couple’s son, who was ten years old at the time of the trial.
• The son stated before the trial court that he saw his father assaulting the victim through a window from his room.
• He clearly deposed that his father repeatedly assaulted the victim first with the sabol and thereafter tied a nylon rope around her neck and dragged her.
• The defence could not shake his evidence in cross-examination.
• The child did not have the time and mental state to falsely conjure up the name of the appellant. There was no time for anyone to tutor him.
• The opportunity of tutoring must be demonstrated by showing that there was an unexplained delay in the recording of the statement of the child witness.
• The statement of the child was recorded by the police and magistrate without any delay.

‘Victim was 18 weeks pregnant’

• The child has deposed that he saw the petitioner strangling the victim at dawn, implying that he clearly saw the incident.
• The child witnessed the crime at his own house; every nook and corner was known to him.
• The crime was committed by his father against his mother. Their physical features were thus unmistakably known to the child. The evidence of the child, therefore, cannot be doubted.
• It is now well-settled that it is for the party who alleges the occurrence of a fact to prove the same.

• There could be a presumption drawn here that there was sufficient light via electricity at the place and time of occurrence.
• The convict was a barber by profession. While it is true that the economic condition of the appellant was not very sound, as deposed by the victim’s father, the same would not negate the existence of the electricity supply to the residence.
• The incident is of 2014. Electricity, therefore, should be presumed to have reached the house of the appellant in view of the growth of the country.
• The victim was admittedly 18 weeks pregnant at that relevant point in time.
• While it is true that there was some alcohol found in the viscera of the victim by the PM Doctor and the victim might have been slightly inebriated, the same cannot be a justification for the husband to assault his wife repeatedly with a sabol.