Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 10 December, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                           Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010061012022




                                                                     2025:GAU-
AS:17024-DB

                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : CRL.A(J)/49/2022

          MOHAN TERANG @ MOHAN TERON
          KARBI ANGLONG, DIPHU, ASSAM.


          VERSUS

          THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY PP, ASSAM.



For the Appellant      :   Mr. A. Ahmed, Amicus Curiae.

For the Respondents:       Ms. B. Bhuyan, APP, Assam.

Ms. K. Phukan, Legal Aid Counsel (R/2).

-BEFORE-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

Date on which judgment is reserved : 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10/12/2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced?

Page No.# 2/6

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

(Michael Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement dated 10/02/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions case No. 63/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC for killing his wife in front of his daughter. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that PW-1 submitted an FIR dated 17/07/2019 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dillai Police Station, stating that his daughter got married with the appellant (son-in-law) in the year 2011 and they had 3 (three) children. While they were living a happy and peaceful family life, a quarrel took place between his son-in-law and daughter around 4-30 a.m. on 17/07/2019, due to which the appellant hit the head of his daughter (deceased) with two pieces of wood, as a result of which his daughter died. Pursuant to the FIR, Dillai PS case No. 25/2019 under section 302 IPC was registered. After investigation had been completed, the Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-8) submitted a charge sheet, having found a prima facie case under section 302 IPC against the appellant. The Trial Court thereafter examined 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant in killing his wife. The appellant was thereafter convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC.

Page No.# 3/6

4. Aggrieved with the impugned judgement, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that there is a delay in filing the FIR, inasmuch as, while the incident took place around 4 a.m. on 17/07/2019, the FIR had been filed 12 hours later. He also submits that while GD Entry No. 323 had been given in respect of the FIR submitted by the PW-1, the seizure memo, inquest report, were in relation to another GD Entry No. 332 dated 17/07/2019. As such, the discrepancy in the GD Entry Number did not prove that the Inquest Report, Post Mortem Examination and Seizure report had all been done in connection with the present case. He also submits that the evidence of PW-5, the Doctor, is to the effect that there was only one injury found on the head of the deceased, which goes to show that only one blow had been given to the head of the deceased. This was not in consonance with the evidence of the daughter of the deceased (PW-2), who had stated that she saw her father assaulting her mother with a wooden log many times.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that as the incident had been seen by the daughter of the appellant and the deceased, and as the Medical Report shows that only one injury was inflicted on the deceased, the conviction may be altered from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part- I or II IPC.

7. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, on the other hand, submits that when there is an eye witness to the crime, which in this case is PW-2 (daughter), there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgement. She also submits that there is nothing in the evidence to show that the Exceptions to section 300 IPC are attracted, for which there can be an alteration of charge framed against the appellant.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. The evidence of the father of the deceased (PW-1), who is also the informant, is to the effect that his son-in-law's house was in front of his house, but on Page No.# 4/6

the other side of the road. On hearing his grand children shouting that their mother had been assaulted, he along with his elder son went to the house of the appellant. He saw the outer door and inner door of the appellant's house locked with chain. He also saw one side of the door made of bamboo tied with a wire. After cutting the wire, he entered the house and found his daughter lying on the floor covered with blood. Then the eldest daughter of the appellant, Miss Jesmita Teranpi (PW-2), told him that her father had killed her mother. He then asked the appellant as to why he had killed the deceased, to which the appellant did not give any reply. Some neighbours of the appellant had also arrived, which led to the appellant being tied up with a rope. PW-1 then took his daughter to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The dead body was taken back to the house. Later, the Police arrived and seized 3 (three) pieces of wood used by the appellant for committing the crime and also the clothes worn by the deceased. After that he lodged an FIR. Further, his eldest grand child (PW-2) had stated that the appellant had dealt a blow on the left ear of the deceased, due to which, the deceased had fallen down.

10. The evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that on the day of the occurrence, PW-2 along with her husband, mother, father and elder brother Sri Sunu Terang were staying together at their house. At around 4 a.m., on hearing a scream, she went out and saw her father assaulting her mother with a wooden log many times. Blood came out from the injuries. On making a hue and cry, the grandfather and grandmother of PW-2 and people from the neighbourhood came to the place of occurrence. In her cross examination, PW-2 stated that the relations between her father and mother were good and on the day of the occurrence, there was no quarrel between her father and mother. She denied the suggestion that she did not see her father beating her mother.

11. The evidence of PWs 3 & 4 are hearsay evidence, except the fact that Police seized 3 (three) wooden pieces (battam) from the place of occurrence and that they had put their signatures on the seizure list as seizure witnesses.

Page No.# 5/6

12. The evidence of PW-5, who is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, is to the effect that he found the following :-

"External Appearance: The subject is of average built with long black hair. Body is slightly decomposed. Rigor mortis is absent. Left side of the skull is depressed in the region of the fronto temporal region. On examination of the scalp and the vertebrae: A depressed fracture of scalp is seen in the left fronto temporal region about 6 cm in diameter. Hematoma is seen under the left fronto temporal part measuring about 6 cm in length.

All the injuries were anti mortem in nature.

Opinion: In my opinion the death occurred due to cerebral haemorrhage caused by blunt weapon."

13. The evidence of PW-6, who is the younger brother of the deceased is to the effect that on the day of the occurrence at about 5 a.m., the son of the appellant came to his house and informed him that his father had beaten his mother. He immediately went to the house of the appellant, where the children of the appellant informed him that their mother had expired. However, they did not tell him as to why their father had killed their mother.

14. The evidence of PW-7, who is the Senior Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, is to the effect that the 3 (three) pieces of wood sent for examination contained suspected blood.

15. The evidence of PW-8, who is the I.O, is to the effect that he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of the Dillai Police Station on 17/07/2019. PW-1 filed an FIR, which was registered by him. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence where he saw the appellant, who had been tied by the villagers. He also saw the dead body and had informed the Executive Magistrate about the same. Inquest over the dead body was conducted by the Executive Magistrate. Three pieces of wooden battam which was Page No.# 6/6

used by the appellant to kill his wife was seized in the presence of witnesses. Sketch map of the place of occurrence was drawn and after examining the witnesses, he arrested the appellant. He also filed the charge sheet.

16. In the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has given a blanket denial in respect of all the questions that were put to him by saying either he did not know or that it was not true.

17. As can be seen from the evidence of his daughter (PW-2), the appellant had killed his wife. The PW-2 was also an eye witness to the same. The medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution witnesses' evidence that the appellant had killed his wife with a wooden battam. As there was nothing to show that there was any reason for the prosecution witnesses to give any false evidence against the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgement dated 10/02/2022 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 63/2019.

18. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.

19. Send back the TCR.

20. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae and

Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 2, their fees should be paid by the Assam

State Legal Service Authority, as per norms.

                         JUDGE                                   JUDGE




Comparing Assistant



                                  Sukhama                  Digitally signed by
                                                           Sukhamay Dey

                                  y Dey                    Date: 2025.12.10
                                                           12:17:08 +05'30'