Kedar Mahato vs The State of Jharkhand

The sole appellant Kedar Mahato, who has been found guilty for the charges u/s 302 IPC for killing his own infant child aged about 5 months, has filed this appeal from jail challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court.

The informant Adri Devi, who is none else than the wife of the appellant, lodged a first information report on 13/02/1992 alleging therein that since she was carrying pregnancy of two months and, therefore, she was living at her ''Maika''. About five months prior to the date of occurrence (13/02/1992) a son was born to her, who was named as Khokhua. A few days prior to the date of occurrence, when the appellant visited her ''Maika'', he was offered some refreshment by the informant but he refused to accept and told her that the child was not his son rather he was of some one else. The appellant went back to his house and, thereafter, he came again on 12/02/1992 to his in-laws place and he stayed there and spent the night in a room alongwith his wife and the deceased child Khokhua. The informant further alleged that after feeding her child in the morning at about 5 ''O'' Clock she left her house and went to attend the call of nature in the field leaving her son and her husband in that very room. On her return, she found her son, i.e. the infant child to be dead and her husband was not there in the house. She alleged that since the appellant was nurturing suspicion in his mind that he was not the father of the child and, therefore, he, by pressing the neck of the child, killed him.

The police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where the appellant pleaded not guilty.

The whole case is based on the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-wetness to the occurrence.

In order to establish the charges, altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom PW-1 Sri Yogendra Nath is the Doctor, who held Post Mortem examination of the dead body of the child, PW-2 Smt. Baisakhi Mahtani is the mother of the informant, PW-3 Kaliram Mahto is the father of the informant, PW- 4 Adri Mahtani is the informant herself, PW-5 Bhuvan Mahto is the uncle of the informant and PW-6 Suresh Pd. Paswan is the Investigating Officer.

The main witness is PW-4 Adri Mahtani the informant, i.e. the wife of the appellant. In her evidence she has stated that at the relevant date and time of occurrence when she was at her parent''s house, she had gone to attend the call of nature leaving behind her five months old child with her husband in the room. After sunrise while she was returning from the field she found that her husband was going away. Her husband had come to her parent''s house on the previous day and he was accusing her that the child was not his son. She further stated that she found her son dead when she returned back from the field. In her cross-examination she has stated that a day prior to the date of the occurrence, her father had gone to another village and he came back only in the early morning. Her father asked about the child at which she replied that he was sleeping in the room. Thereafter, her father went to wake up the child where he found that the child was lying dead and, thereafter, she came to know about the death of her child. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that in her parent''s house there is only one room, which is surrounded by open Verandah. She further stated that she with her husband and the child were sleeping in that room and her brother Gopal Mahto was sleeping in the outer Verandah. She has admitted that after her marriage, she was suffering from epilepsy. She denied the suggestion of the defence that at the relevant time she had epileptic attack due to which the child came under the pressure of her body due to which he died.

PW-2 Smt. Baisakhi Mahtani the mother of the informant stated that the appellant had come to her house on the previous day and stayed there in the night. In the next morning, her husband Kaliram Mahto (PW-3) went to wake up the deceased then he found him lying dead on a cot. She has further stated that in the night, her daughter, i.e. the informant as well as the child were sleeping in that room. She also stated that her daughter, i.e. the informant had gone to ease herself in the morning and by the time she returned back, the appellant had already fled away from the house. PW-3 Kaliram Mahto is the father of the informant, who has been tendered

PW-1 is the Doctor, who held the Post Mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

(i) A contusion on tip of tongue.

(ii) The right half of lower lip was contused with super-added abrasion 2 cm. x 1/2 cm.

(iii) Crowded abrasion 4 cm. x 4 cm. on left cheek. He has also found the following internal injuries on dissection of the dead body:

Petechial haemorrhage over both lungs surface---On dissection of both the lungs, the lungs were found congested and dark red blood came out. Brain, both the kidneys, liver and spleen were found congested. The stomach contained curdy milk 40 ml. Thje mucous membrance was not congested. There were dried salivary mark and mucus over cheek.

According to the Doctor the ante mortem wounds were caused by pressure over mouth of the deceased and the death was caused due to smothering, i.e. closing of the air passage by hand, which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence and materials on record convicted and sentence the appellant as already stated herein above.

Mrs. Mahua Palit, learned Counsel who appeard as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence relying on which the appellant has been convicted do not point out conclusively towards the guilt of the accused. According to the learned Counsel that the circumstantial evidences adduced by the prosecution are not of such nature from which it cannot be inferred that it was the appellant, who killed the infant child.

The presence of the appellant in his in-laws place and his presence inside the room on the date and place of occurrence, where the child was found dead, is rather admitted. The appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that on the date and time of occurrence, he was sleeping in the room alongwith his wife and the child at his in-laws place.

From the evidence, which has been discussed above, we find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the informant supported and corroborated by the other evidence on record. The informant''s statement that the appellant was nurturing suspicion in his mind that the deceased was not his son and, therefore, this can very well be inferred that the appellant came to his in-laws place in the previous night of the occurrence with a determined mind to do away with the root cause of his anguish by eliminating the child.

In our view, the learned trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that the suspicion in the mind of the appellant generated a severe anguish because, from the moment the informant had conceived, the appellant had doubt in his mind that she was pregnant by some other person. The fact that the deceased child was sleeping and normal till morning when the informant left the room for nature''s call after feeding the child and at that time in the room only the appellant was present with the child. There was none-else in the room except the appellant therefore, the conclusion has to be drawn that only this appellant, who was having grudge against his wife due to suspicion in his mind about her character, killed the child. The dead body of the child was recovered just after the appellant left the house and, therefore, on scrutinizing the evidence and the circumstances unerringly are pointing towards the guilt of the accused/appellant. The chain of circumstances are complete in this case and there is no escape from the conclusion that it was the appellant who killed the child and none-else.

In view of the discussions and finding above, we hold that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial court. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against this appellant is hereby affirmed and this appeal is dismissed.