Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Babul Ali in Child's Murder, Cites Overwhelming Eyewitness Testimony

Guwahati , Assam (06 May 2025) – The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Babul Ali @ Babu , upholding his conviction and life imprisonment sentence for the brutal murder of 8-year-old Minuwara Begum in 2014. The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Saikia and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund , found the eyewitness testimony, particularly from the victim's mother and brother, to be "robust and overwhelming," sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite arguments of minor discrepancies and some investigative lapses.

The judgment, dated May 6, 2025, affirmed the January 22, 2020, decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta , which found Babul Ali guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Tragic Incident

The case dates back to October 27, 2014, when Minuwara Begum was playing in front of the appellant's house in Barpeta , Assam. The prosecution's case was that Babul Ali suddenly attacked the child with a sharp weapon, inflicting multiple severe injuries. Minuwara succumbed to her injuries on the way to the hospital. Villagers apprehended the appellant, Babul Ali , who had taken shelter in his house, and he was subsequently arrested along with the weapon of offence. An FIR was lodged by the victim's father, Rajat Ali (PW-1).

The trial court, after examining nine prosecution witnesses, convicted Babul Ali , sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

Appellant's Plea: Discrepancies and Lack of Motive

Appearing as Amicus Curiae, Mr. B. Prasad, counsel for the appellant, argued vigorously against the conviction, highlighting several points: * The informant (victim's father, PW-1) was not an eyewitness. * No evidence of prior animosity between the appellant and the victim's family was presented. * The scribe of the FIR was not examined. * Discrepancies in witness testimonies, including the sequence of events and who took the victim to the hospital. * The weapon (described by some as a dagger, by others as a khukuri) was not sent for forensic examination, and its nature (serrated vs. smooth edge) was questioned in relation to the "clean cut" injuries described by the medical officer. * Failure of the Investigating Officer (IO) to seize the victim's blood-stained clothes or lift blood-stained earth for examination. * Contradictions regarding the exact spot from where the weapon was recovered within the appellant's house. * PW-1's statement during cross-examination that he lodged the FIR on suspicion.

State's Counter: Consistent Eyewitness Accounts

Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Assam, contended that the prosecution's case was supported by direct ocular evidence from two eyewitnesses – the victim's brother, Monsher Ali (PW-4), and mother, Farida Khatun (PW-5). She argued that there was no justifiable reason for the victim's family, who were neighbours and relatives of the appellant, to falsely implicate him.

High Court's Rigorous Evidence Re-appraisal

The High Court undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence on record. The bench meticulously examined the testimonies of all key witnesses.

Reliance on Eyewitnesses and Relative Testimony

The Court placed significant reliance on the testimonies of PW-4 (Monsher Ali) and PW-5 (Farida Khatun), the victim's brother and mother respectively, who claimed to have witnessed the appellant attacking Minuwara.

The Court noted, "The evidence of the eye witnesses, PW-4 and PW- 5 could not be contradicted or controverted despite arduous cross-examination by the defence."

The judgment explicitly stated that the testimony of relatives cannot be dismissed merely due to their relationship with the victim, especially when no motive for false implication is established.

"Thus, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of the victim. There was no animosity between the appellant and the deceased’s father."

The Court highlighted that the incident appeared to have been triggered by a quarrel between the victim and the appellant's daughter, Sahnaj Begum , who were playing together.

"The evidence of PW-1 clearly reveals that the daughter of the appellant and the informant’s daughter had a quarrel and the victim was attacked by the appellant’s daughter and thereafter, this incident occurred after the fight between the children, when the appellant came and attacked the victim with the weapon of offence."

Minor Discrepancies Not Fatal to Prosecution Case

Addressing the appellant's arguments regarding inconsistencies, the Court observed:

"It is not plausible that as soon as the commotion is heard, the sequence of the incident will be aptly described by each and every witness. Each and every witness has his own perception... The sequel of events described by each witness cannot fit like hand in glove."

The Court dismissed the argument that PW-1 lodging the FIR on "suspicion" (a statement made during cross-examination) weakened the prosecution case, stating:

"When the evidence is as clear as crystal and when all the witnesses have given evidence against the appellant that he has committed the murder, such cross examination cannot give flight to imagination that the FIR was lodged on suspicion. The evidence has to be assessed diligently and rationally and not on nuances and fanciful views."

The Fatal Weapon and Medical Evidence

Regarding the weapon, described variably as a 'khukuri' or 'dagger', the Court found no significant contradiction. The medical officer (PW-8) had described six injuries, including punctured, penetrating, and incised wounds with clean-cut margins, opining death due to haemorrhagic shock from injuries caused by a "pointed sharp-cutting weapon." The Court noted that while the seizure list described the khukuri as having a serrated upper portion, the remaining part was smooth, capable of causing clean-cut injuries. The weapon was identified in court (Material Exhibit-A) by PW-7 (Sahidul Islam) and PW-9 (IO). The seizure of the weapon from the appellant's house was deemed well-established through the testimony of seizure witnesses PW-6 and PW-7, and the IO (PW-9), despite minor variations in where it was hidden.

Investigative Lapses

While acknowledging lapses like not sending blood-stained clothes for forensic examination, the Court, referencing Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2022 SC 2396) , held that such flaws are not automatically fatal if other evidence is cogent and compelling, as was found in this case.

Legal Precedents Discussed

The Court distinguished the appellant's reliance on Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel vs. State of UP (MANU/SC/1433/2022) , stating it pertained to appeals against acquittal and the trial court's decision in the present case was not palpably wrong or unjust. Instead, the Court found the principles in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh ((1974) 3 SCC 277) applicable, emphasizing that evidence should be judged by its intrinsic worth and probabilities, and trustworthy evidence should not be rejected on fanciful grounds.

Final Verdict: Appeal Dismissed

Concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court found no merit in the appeal.

"In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the overwhelming evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder by intentionally causing the death of the victim. We, hereby record our concurrence to the decision of the learned Trial Court."

The judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta , were upheld, confirming Babul Ali @ Babu 's life imprisonment. The Court also appreciated the assistance of the Amicus Curiae and recommended payment of honorarium.