The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the subsequent conduct of the appellant is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but merely on the basis of subsequent conduct, the appellant cannot be convicted that too for an offense under Section 302 of IPC.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, for the murder of her two-year-old son, Bodda @ Ayush. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant strangulated the child as he was born out of an illicit relationship. A postmortem revealed that the child died due to cardio-respiratory failure caused by strangulation. The appellant’s memorandum statement allegedly disclosed her motive and led to her arrest. She was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence and was not supported by any direct proof or reliable chain of events. It was submitted that the trial court wrongly relied on the appellant’s memorandum statement and subsequent conduct, both of which were inadmissible or insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appellant claimed innocence and sought acquittal on the benefit of doubt.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned State counsel supported the conviction, contending that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State relied on the postmortem findings and the appellant’s conduct, including her failure to explain the child’s whereabouts and her confession.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is a correct finding of fact based on evidence and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. The learned trial Court relied upon the aspect of the appellant not informing about the whereabouts of the deceased to others and maintaining silence upon it, which is his subsequent conduct relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court observed that the subsequent conduct of the appellant is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but merely on the basis of subsequent conduct, the appellant cannot be convicted that too for an offense under Section 302 of IPC. The Court said that the reliance placed by the trial Court on the confessional part of the statement of the accused/appellant, admitting his guilt, is inadmissible in evidence and cannot form a basis for his conviction.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: Smt. Kamaldei vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 430/2016
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. B.K. Chakrabarty
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate
Picture Source :
