Backing life term for man who hacked wife to death, Gauhati High Court directs aid for their 3 deaf, speech-impaired kids

Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) pertains to victim compensation schemes.

‘Benefit to be kept in FD’

• The Gauhati High Court also mentioned that the authorities should keep in mind that some portion of the benefit may be kept in fixed deposits till the children come of age, while the rest may be used for their present upkeep.
• It held that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had killed his wife.
• The bench found that there was no infirmity in the decision of the trial court in convicting and sentencing the accused under IPC Section 302.
• The court directed that the fees of the legal aid counsel, U Choudhury, should be paid by the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee.

Murder at tea estate

The accused reportedly hacked his wife with a dao at around 4.30 pm on September 16, 2017, at Bokpara Tea Estate.

During the investigation, the trial court charged the accused with murder, to which he pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the trial court came to the finding that the accused had indeed killed his wife with a dao.

He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 3,000, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by this conviction order, the accused filed the present appeal before the Gauhati High Court.

Lone eyewitness

• Appearing for the accused, Senior Advocate H R A Choudhury submitted that though the alleged incident took place in a tea garden, where bonus was being paid to the workers, and a nearby market had been set up in the area, the chargesheet has not listed any private/independent person to be a prosecution witness.
• He emphasised that only one person, who is a policeman, was an eyewitness to the crime.
• He submitted that in the absence of any private/independent witness, the evidence of that said policeman cannot be the sole ground for convicting the accused.
• He added that the dao seized by the police was not sent for forensic examination, which was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

‘No reason to doubt evidence’

• On the contrary, Assistant Public Prosecutor B Bhuyan submitted that there is no infirmity with the decision of the trial court, since there is no reason to doubt the evidence of the witness, only because he is a policeman.
• She further submitted before the Gauhati High Court that, due to the accused having killed his wife, who had eloped with another person, the three children born to them, who were deaf and dumb, need support.
• She added that the benefits under Section 357A of the CrPC should be provided to them.
• As there is no infirmity with the decision of the trial court, the judgment should not be interfered with, she submitted before the Gauhati High Court.