Back
Conviction Upheld: Affirms Life Sentence in Brutal Spousal Killing
The Division Bench of the has dismissed the appeal of Modon Urang, confirming his conviction under for hacking his wife to death with a dao in a tea garden. Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Rajesh Mazumdar ruled that the credible account of a lone police eyewitness was sufficient to sustain the life sentence.
A Day of Bonus Payments Turns Tragic
On , workers at Bokpara Tea Estate were receiving their annual bonus when chaos erupted near Bokul L.P. School. The informant, brother-in-law of the appellant, reported that Modon Urang had attacked his wife with a sharp weapon. The victim, who had reportedly eloped with another man, suffered devastating chop wounds that nearly severed both forearms, sliced through the face, and exposed brain matter. Death was instantaneous, as confirmed by the .
PW-5, Assistant Sub-Inspector Dilip Gogoi, was on law-and-order duty at the estate that day. Hearing screams, he rushed to the spot and witnessed the attack. The appellant was apprehended on the spot with the blood-stained dao, which was seized and produced in court.
Defence Attacks Reliability of Police Testimony
Senior counsel for the appellant argued that convicting solely on the evidence of PW-5—a policeman and so-called “”—was unsafe. They highlighted the absence of independent civilian witnesses despite the presence of a busy market and bonus distribution, failure to send the weapon for forensic examination, and discrepancies in the recording of statements. Counsel further contended that the non-examination of five listed prosecution witnesses raised doubts about the fairness of the trial.
The State countered that nothing in law prevents a police officer from being the sole eyewitness. Reliance was placed on precedents affirming that credible testimony of police personnel requires no independent corroboration.
How the Court Evaluated Police Evidence
The Bench undertook a careful review of established principles. Citing , the Court reiterated that “if the testimony of the police officer is reliable, trustworthy and cogent, it can form the basis of conviction.” The mere fact that a witness belongs to the police force does not warrant automatic suspicion.
On the issue of chance witnesses, the Court drew from , holding that credible testimony cannot be discarded simply because the witness happened to be present by chance. Here, PW-5’s presence was explained by his official duty at the bonus distribution—not coincidence.
The judges noted that PW-2, a Homeguard, corroborated the scene: he saw the appellant holding a blood-stained dao near the victim’s body in a drain and witnessed the weapon being seized. The Court found the injuries described by PW-3 fully consistent with the use of a heavy, sharp weapon like the seized dao.
Key Observations from the Bench
“We have got no reason to doubt the evidence of PW-5 regarding seeing the incident of the appellant hacking his wife with a dao. There is no whisper or any enmity, ulterior motive or reason given by the appellant, for PW-5 to have given any false evidence.”
“There is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials.”
“When there are eye-witnesses to the crime, the non-compliance of the requirement of sending the weapon for does not mean that the prosecution story is unreliable and not believable.”
The Bench further clarified that reducing statements under to writing is not mandatory, and the absence of such written statements did not .
Final Verdict and Its Ripple Effects
The appeal was dismissed and the life sentence maintained. The Court also recommended that the examine whether compensation under could be extended to the couple’s three deaf-and-dumb children.
The judgment strengthens the position that in cases of clear, unshaken —even from police personnel—courts need not insist on independent witnesses or forensic reports on the weapon. It serves as a reminder for trial courts to focus on the intrinsic credibility of testimony rather than its source.
