Chased, Dragged, Beaten to Death: Gauhati High Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Brutal Killing of 13-Year-Old Boy

“Not a Sudden Fight—It Was a Premeditated, Targeted Attack with Common Intention,”  In a stern reaffirmation of the law on common intention and murder under Section 302 IPC, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of three individuals for the brutal murder of a 13-year-old boy, rejecting their plea to reduce the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC.

Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2020, filed by convicts Md. Abul Kalam, Araj Ali, and Rustom Ali, affirming the life sentence and concurrent punishments for grievous injuries caused to the boy’s father and sisters.

The Court held: “This is not a case of sudden fight or provocation. The appellants came armed, chased a child who was hiding out of fear, dragged him out, and fatally assaulted him. The manner, the weapons, and the concerted action speak volumes of premeditation and common intention.”

Court: “Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC Not Attracted – There Was Premeditation, Brutality, and a Clear Intention to Kill”

The appellants had urged the High Court to convert their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I, arguing that the incident stemmed from a spontaneous fight over a cattle trespass dispute. They relied on the Sudam Prabhakar Achat case to argue that the weapon used was a lathi (a blunt object) and only one injury was inflicted, implying absence of intention to kill.

However, the Court categorically rejected the plea, stating:
“Rather than a sudden fight, this was a planned assault. The accused not only threatened the victim’s family in the morning but returned armed, hunted the boy, and beat him to death. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC has no application in such a context.”

The Bench relied on a host of Supreme Court precedents, including Rayavarapu Punnayya (AIR 1977 SC 45), Rampal Singh (2012) 8 SCC 289, and Aradadi Ramudu (2012) 5 SCC 134, reiterating that “where the act is done with clear intent to kill or with knowledge that it will likely cause death, the offence squarely falls under Section 302 IPC.”

Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – “Their Relationship Does Not Discredit Their Testimony When It Is Consistent, Corroborated, and Truthful”

The Court placed considerable reliance on four injured eyewitnesses, namely the mother (PW.1), sisters (PW.4 & PW.8), and father (PW.11) of the deceased, noting that their testimonies were internally consistent, corroborated each other, and aligned with the medical evidence.

“It is settled law that testimony of family members is not to be discarded merely for their relationship with the deceased, especially when they are also victims of the same incident. In the present case, they were assaulted and witnessed their minor child being killed before their eyes,” the Court observed, citing Abhishek Sharma v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1358).

The post-mortem confirmed multiple fractures on the occipital bone, and severe hemorrhage and shock, all consistent with fatal head trauma. The Court observed: “The medical evidence corroborates the ocular version. The blow to the back of the head with a heavy blunt weapon was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”

“Premeditated, Coordinated, and Targeted Violence” – Appellants Acted with Common Intention

The prosecution narrative, accepted by both the trial court and the High Court, detailed how the initial altercation began in the morning over the complainant’s cow straying into the accused's field. Later, the accused’s family allegedly released their own cow onto the complainant’s tomato field in retaliation.

When the deceased boy, Shah Ali, tried to chase the cow away, he was roped by the neck by a female accused, and when his mother and sisters intervened to rescue him, the accused men returned with weapons, chased Shah Ali who tried to hide, and dragged him out to assault him fatally.

The Court held: “The accused acted together, with shared intent, and carried out the assault not just on the deceased, but also on the rest of the family. The circumstances reflect a clear common intention under Section 34 IPC.”

It added: “The act of hunting a child hiding in fear and then beating him to death cannot be said to arise out of heat of the moment. It was cold, brutal, and calculated.”

“Minor Contradictions Don’t Shake the Foundation of the Prosecution Case”

The Court brushed aside minor discrepancies in witness statements, holding that such deviations are natural and don’t negate the core of the prosecution’s version.

Citing Thoti Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 7 SCC 723, the Bench remarked: “No human testimony is perfect. The duty of the Court is to examine whether the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact – and in this case, it certainly does.”

Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC Affirmed

In conclusion, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, on 19 November 2019 in Sessions Case No. 138/2018.

The judgment recorded: “We are of the opinion that the prosecution has established that the accused-appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, caused grievous injuries to PW.1, PW.4, PW.8, and PW.11, and committed the murder of Shah Ali. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

The Court also acknowledged the valuable assistance of Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, Amicus Curiae, and directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority to remunerate her appropriately.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025