Court says mother won’t frame husband, confirms man’s life term for killing stepson

In the July 1 order, the bench added that it is also a natural fact that a mother, like the informant in this case, whose two-year-old son was killed by her own husband, would not falsely implicate her beloved second husband, whom she had deserted and left her first husband.

Justices J J Munir and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi were hearing a plea of a man accused of the murder of his stepson.

Acknowledging that although no other prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story except the informant, the order noted that, however, at the time of the incident, she was present with the accused and her deceased child in the room where the incident happened, meaning that she is a helpless and sole witness, who testified and proved the prosecution’s story in respect of her deceased child.

Jealousy over stepson turned fatal

This plea has been filed by the accused-appellant against the 2016 trial court order in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The trial court has held him guilty of murder and awarded rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000.

The matter originated from the complaint filed by a woman alleging that her husband often beat her elder son, who was born to her with her ex-husband, and due to this reason, he harbored enmity with him.

According to the woman, on 28 October, 2015, at around 11.00 AM, her husband was beating her elder son in the room. On hearing the voice of her son’s weeping, she reached and saw that her husband was beating him. Blood was oozing from the mouth of her son, and he was lying on the bed. She stated that when she saw her husband beating her son, he ran away. She claimed that she had seen her son die.

In her complaint, she stated that she began to weep and cry, and then people from the house and nearby places came and saw him and ran away. The dead body of my son is lying on the spot.

On the complaint of the woman, the police initiated the investigation, and after the hearing, the trial court found the husband guilty of the murder of his stepson.

Mother would not spare culprit: Order

• After leaving her first husband, Mantu, the woman began to live with the accused-appellant.
• The accused had taken a rented room, and they started living together, where the woman got a second child from her second husband.
• According to the woman, since her deceased son was born to her first husband, due to this reason, the accused had kept jealousy and enmity towards her son.
• According to the woman, the accused often beat and assaulted the deceased. He likes and loves his own second child, who was born to him with her.
• A woman like informant, who deserted and left her first husband and came to live with the accused, how and why she falsely implicated her second husband for the murder of her elder child, aged about two years.
• From the perusal of the whole evidence of this witness, including cross-examination, we find no contradiction, inconsistency, exaggeration, or embellishment in the evidence of the complainant of this nature by reason of which we could doubt the truthful and creditworthy evidence of this witness.

• Only on the grounds of minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration, and embellishment, reliable and trustworthy evidence of the informant could not be doubted or rejected.
• We find that the evidence and testimony of the informant to be wholly reliable and creditworthy in respect of the prosecution’s story.
• We find that when the informant was betrayed by her second husband, the accused, the prosecution witnesses also betrayed the woman and tried to ensure the acquittal of the accused by becoming hostile.
• A mother of a deceased child would not spare the real culprit of the crime and would not falsely implicate his second husband, whom she had deserted and left her first husband and his family.

Final order

The court dismissed the accused’s plea and upheld his conviction under Section 302 IPC for murdering his two-year-old stepson. It affirmed the sentence of rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000, holding that the mother’s testimony was wholly reliable despite other prosecution witnesses turning hostile.