SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Marli Vankung, JJ.
Smt. Ludhiya Surin – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By PP- Respondent
CRL.A(J)/68/2019
Decided On : 06-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M Sarma, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Jahan, Addl. PP

Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence and voluntary confessions, highlighting the necessity of proving intent in homicide cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for murder of a minor child - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment - Circumstantial evidence supported by extra-judicial confessions made in the presence of villagers - Confession was voluntary and not coerced despite claims of public assault. (Paras 1, 25, 40, 44)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Examination of accused under Section 313 does not absolve the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - Admissions made in examination under Section 313 are relevant. (Paras 17, 38)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 329 - No defense of unsoundness of mind taken during the trial - Burden of proof lies with the accused to establish circumstances for the general exceptions. (Paras 31, 33)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a mother, was convicted for murdering her 1½ year old son by pouring hot water and striking him with a stone, after she concealed the body in a pit behind their house. Evidence presented included the husband's declaration upon discovering the corpse and confessions to various villagers. (Paras 3, 26)

Findings of Court:
Evidence corroborated the conclusions of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances led to the only conclusion of guilt. (Paras 28, 44)

Issues: Whether the prosecution established intent to cause death; the admissibility of extra-judicial confession; the necessity of proving intent and the rebuttal of defense claims regarding unsoundness of mind. (Paras 17, 28, 37)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the contextual circumstances provided sufficient evidence for the appellant's conviction and that the defense had not adequately proved claims of unsoundness of mind or forced confession. (Paras 27, 44)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appellant convicted for infanticide (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the incident and testimonies (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. post-mortem findings corroborate cause of death (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. arguments regarding implication and confession (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21)
5. legal analysis of admissions made under section 313 cr.p.c. (Para 19)
6. arguments reinforcing prosecution's case (Para 22 , 24 , 25)
7. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of conviction (Para 43 , 44)
9. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 46)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2019 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 Sections 302 /201 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 /238 of BNS ] and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two months for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

2. The facts concerned are very unfortunate and shocking which involves the death of a 1½ 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 31.03.2017 by the husband of the appellant, who is the father of the deceased. He had stated that in the previous evening, i.e., on 30.03.2017, when he had come home after playing volleyball at about 7 p.m., he had found his 1 ½ 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 ½ 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 Section 302 of the IPC[corresponding to Section 103 of BNS ].The investigation was accordingly done whereafter the charge-sheet was laid. The learned Trial Court had accordingly framed the charges under Section 302 r/w Section 201 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 /238 of BNS ] and on denial thereof, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of witnesses.

4. PW-1 is the informant, who is the husband of the appellant and father of the deceased infant. He had deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 3 p.m., he had brought rice and biscuits to his house and when his son was eating biscuits, he had noticed that the appellant was boiling water. On asking, the appellant responded that the water was being boiled for the purpose of bathing, both for herself and their minor son. Thereafter, he had left for playing volleyball and on his return to his house at about 7 p.m., on asking about their son, the appellant had replied that she could not find him. Thereafter, he had searched for his son and could not find him on that night. Subsequently, on the next day, he searched for his son in the well but could not find him. At that time, he had noticed that his wife was trying to hide something with the garbage and on being asked, she had stated that she had gone to attend nature’s call. Thereafter, on susp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top