Trial Court's Conviction under Section 304(II) IPC Set Aside for Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence and Uncorroborated Circumstances
In a significant judgment delivered on August 19, 2026, the Gauhati High Court quashed the conviction of Hanufa Nasrin, who was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment for allegedly causing the death of her minor daughter. The Sessions Court had convicted her under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, upon appeal, the High Court found the conviction unsustainable due to the failure of the prosecution to conclusively establish the cause of death and the reliance on inadmissible and uncorroborated evidence by the trial court.
The case stemmed from an incident on January 8, 2014, when the infant daughter of the appellant, aged approximately 11 months, died under circumstances initially deemed suspicious by the family and police. The prosecution's theory was that Hanufa Nasrin had caused the death of her child, with the charge sheet filed under Section 302 IPC initially. Despite this, the trial court convicted her under the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
During the trial, 12 witnesses, including family members, medical officers, and investigating officers, testified. However, critical examination of the evidence revealed significant gaps. Notably, the medical officer, Dr. Partha Pratim Das, who conducted the postmortem, found a contusion on the child's head and subarachnoid hemorrhage but did not opine that these injuries were sufficient to cause death. The medical report also indicated the presence of a cyst in the brain.
Importantly, the chemical examination report, which suggested organophosphorus poisoning as the cause of death, was discarded by the trial court itself. This was because the report was based on exhibits unrelated to the case, rendering it inadmissible. Thus, no conclusive medical evidence linked the appellant to the child's death.
Further, the High Court noted that the trial court had relied on statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are inadmissible as substantive evidence, and on materials that were never formally introduced in court. The prosecution's circumstantial evidence was found to be insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellant's counsel, Mr. S. C. Biswas, argued that the case was one of "no evidence," emphasizing the absence of credible medical proof and the trial court's improper reliance on inadmissible materials. The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court had correctly evaluated the entire evidence and circumstances. However, the High Court disagreed.
Consequently, the Gauhati High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the appellant's immediate release. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of fair trial and evidentiary standards, particularly in serious criminal matters involving the death of a child.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 304(II) IPC cannot be sustained if the prosecution fails to establish the cause of death conclusively and the trial court relies on inadmissible evidence and uncorroborated circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Section 304(II), Section 302, Section 161 Cr.P.C.; Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(2)(1)
Hanufa Nasrin v. State of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2963302
