LexUTTAM CHAKRABORTY versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1
UTTAM CHAKRABORTY
v.
STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2006 etc.)
APRIL 6, 2010
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
PRASAD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 304 - An eight month pregnant woman died of burn
injuries -
Post-mortem report revealing severe cut in
abdomen and foetus removed - Husband of deceased and
his friend convicted of murder - Husband sentenced to death
A
B
c
- Life imprisonment to co-accused - Sentences confirmed by o
High Court - HELD: The girl with whom the accused-husband
was stated to have had illicit relationship, though supported
the prosecution case in her statement uls 164 CrPC, but
before the court she resiled therefrom - In the light of the fact
that a statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P. C. is not substantive
E
evidence, the court has to go to the other evidence produced
in court by the prosecution - Both the trial court and the High
Court have noticed that the only other evidence against the
accused-husband was the statement of PW-6, a 4-5 year old
child of the deceased and the accused -PW-6 did support the F
prosf]cution and it is primarily his evidence that has led to the
conviction of the accused - The courts below have a/so found
corroboration for the motive in the statement of PW-5, the
mother of the deceased, and the very material circumstance
that the murder had been committed in the matrimonial house
of the couple - However, notwithstanding the fact that PW-6 G
is a witness whose credibility has not been doubted, it would
perhaps be imprudent to award a capital sentence on the
smtement of a child witness - Therefore, though the conviction
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
of the accused-husband (appellant in Cr/. A. No. 87112006)
needs to be maintained, and his crime was truly horrendous,
the death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment - There
is absolutely no evidence to connect the co-accused
(appellant in Cr/. A,. No. 86912006) with the murder - PW-4
. B did state that at about 10110.30 p.nf. on the night of the
occurrence, he had seen the two accused discussing
something with each other and while they were doing so, a girl
had come out shouting and told the accused that his wife had
died of bum injuries - This evidence cannot connect the co-
C accused with the murder- PW-5, the motherofthe deceased,
has not said a word about his involvement in the incident
except that he was a neighbour of PW-1 - PW-6 did identify
the co-accused in court but he apparently mistook him for
PW-4, as is clear from his statement - In this view of the
0
matter, conviction of the co-accused cannot be sustained and
he is acquitted - Evidence - Sentence/Sentencing.
Evidence:
Child witness - Testimony of- HELD: In the instant case,
E notwithstanding the fact that credibility of child witness has not
been doubted, it would be imprudent to award capital sentence
on his statement - Sentence/Sentencing.
Suresh VS. State of U.P. 1981 (3) SCR 259 = (1981) 2
F SCC 569; and Raja Ram Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Bihar
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 174 = (1996) 9 sec 287 - relied on .
. Case Law Reference:
G
. 1981 (3) SCR 259
relied on
para 5
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 174 relied on
para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H
.,
UTTAM CHAKRABORTY v: STATE OF ASSAM
3
No. 869 of 2006.
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.04.2006 of the
Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2005.
:s'{ITH •
1\
f'1 ._ •
Crl. Appeal No. 871 of 2006c:' .·.
''j I
.-.,
S.B. Sanyal, Azim H. Laskar, Sachiri Oas, Rana
Mukherjee, Abhijit Sengutpa for the Appellant.
J.R. Luwang, Navneert (for Corporate Law Group) for the
Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 871
and 869 of 2006.
2. The fads are as under:
The appellants, Mission Suklabaidhya and Uttam
Chakraborty were friends. Mission Suklabaidhya, who was a
retired Army personnel, was married to Gita Das deceased.
·s
c
D
E
·The couple had a child Marjon PW-6 who was about 4 or 5
F
years old when the incident happened. The deceased was also
pregnant at that time and was carrying a foetus about 8 months
old. As the deceased was employed as a school teacher, the
couple had engaged one Panchami Suklabaidya PW-1, aged
16 years, as a domestic help, and she resided in the house of G
·the couple. As per the prosecution story, Mission Suklabaidhya
and PWExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.