He killed his mother over Rs 30: Why Gauhati High Court refused to reduce alcoholic son’s life sentence

The Guahati High Court said that the father said that his son struck the neck of his mother with bothi dao and fled with the weapon in his hand. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• It was only the appellant who had killed his mother with the bothi dao and nobody else.
• The provocation was also initiated by the appellant, when he started abusing his mother for giving him only Rs 30.
• Just because the mother apparently gave two slaps to the appellant, who was fighting his uncle, does not lead us to believe that there was any provocation initiated by the mother against him.
• The fact that the appellant had used a bothi dao on a vital part of the body of his mother, which nearly severed her neck/head, shows that a huge amount of force had been deployed by him.
• Death was instantaneous following injury over the spinal cord.
• Injury was ante mortem caused by sharp edged heavy weapon and was homicidal in nature.
• There was a chop wound of size 12cm x 7cm on the spinal cord.
• Skin, muscles, vessels, nerves, spinous process of 6th cervical vertebrae, body of 7th cervical vertebrae and spinal cord inside the 7th cervical vertebrae all were cut at this level.
• Margins were sharp, contused at places and blood clots.
• The eye witness who saw the Nandi hacking the neck of his mother with the bothi dao is his own father.
• The father, as a key witness, had stated that his son demanded money from his mother and his wife then gave him Rs 30.
• Nandi struck the neck of his mother with bothi dao and fled with the weapon in his hand, said the father.
• The explanation by the appellant to the evidence against him that he had killed his mother is false.
• Nandi said his father was not present at the time of the incident and that his maternal uncle had killed his mother.
• The said explanation given by the appellant is not supported by any corroborating evidence.
• The appellant made himself a witness, to prove that it was his maternal uncle who had killed the deceased and not him.
• The same is not in consonance with evidence of his eye witness father, who saw the appellant striking the deceased.
• The appellant has taken a stand that he was intoxicated and could not be said to be a reasonable person at the time of the incident.
• Do not have any reason to believe the explanation given by the appellant that he was not the perpetrator of the crime.
• In fact, the answers given by the appellant to questions implies that he had killed his mother.
• There is nothing in the evidence to show that the father of the appellant had any reason to fabricate a story, to the effect that the appellant had killed his mother.
• In fact, we find the testimony of the father to be trustworthy and it inspires the confidence of the court.
• This is not only due to the fact that no reason has been given by the appellant as to why his father should tell a lie.
• The testimony of the father is corroborated by the testimony of brother of the mother.
• Being a reliable eyewitness to the crime in question, we do not accept the attempt made by the appellant, to pin the death of the deceased at the hands of his maternal uncle.
• The statement by a policeman, had stated that while he was on his way to the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant with the bothi dao in his hands, as the appellant was going to the police outpost to surrender.
• In the present case, there being no fight between the appellant and his mother, we are of the view that Exception-4 to Section 300 is not attracted.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) reduces murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when death occurs in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, from a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly/unusually, making it an exception where intention for murder isn’t fully formed due to sudden provocation.

Background

• On the morning of March 16, 2016, at a railway quarter in Jalukbari, Guwahati, Nandi, who was addicted to alcohol, had earlier taken money from his mother, Gita Rani Nandi, and left the house.
• He returned later in an intoxicated state and demanded more money.
• When his mother handed him Rs 30, he became enraged and began abusing her verbally.
• Following this, his maternal uncle, brother of his mother, who was present there intervened and a scuffle ensued between the two.
• The mother slapped Nandi after which, his uncle left the house in anger.
• Nandi, enraged, picked up the weapon and hacked his mother’s neck off.
• On July 13, a trial court sentenced him for life for killing his mother.
• Nandi approached the high court challenging the trial court’s verdict.

Defense: no intention to kill, act done under provocation

• Advocates A H Laskar, S Das, S A Hussain and D J Haloi appearing for Nandi argued that he was intoxicated at the time and incapable of rational judgment.
• The incident occurred without premeditation.
• A quarrel broke out after his maternal uncle objected to him abusing his mother.
• His mother allegedly slapped him twice during the altercation, which, according to him, amounted to grave and sudden provocation.
• Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the defense sought protection under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, urging the court to reduce the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The counsel claimed that he was falsely implicated and suggested that his maternal uncle killed his mother.

Prosecution’s stand

• Opposing the submissions, Additional Public Prosecutor, A Begum argued that the eyewitness testimony of the accused’s own father stated that he saw his son strike the fatal blow.
• The prosecution outlined the corroboration from the maternal uncle.
• Medical evidence proved that the blow was delivered with immense force on a vital part of the body, the APP submitted.
• The prosecution emphasised that the accused initiated the provocation, abused his mother, and later deliberately picked up a deadly weapon to strike her neck.