Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case

“Failure to Produce Weapon Not Fatal When Injured Witness's Testimony Is Clear and Corroborated by Medical Evidence”, In a detailed judgment Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction of Jayanta Basumatary under Section 324 IPC for stabbing his wife with a dagger, causing injuries to her chest, abdomen, and thumb. However, considering the appellant’s age (63), the custody already undergone, and the passage of time, the sentence of one year’s imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, with the fine of ₹10,000 maintained.

Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund reiterated key principles governing the credibility of injured eyewitnesses, the effect of delay in FIR, and the limited relevance of non-production of the weapon when medical and ocular evidence aligns.

Conviction Under Section 324 IPC Upheld – But Sentence Reduced in Consideration of Age and Custody

The High Court partially allowed the appeal under Section 374 read with Section 382 CrPC, affirming the conviction for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 324 IPC, but modifying the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Chirang in Sessions Case No. 1/2022.

Justice Khaund observed: “An injured person will never let her assailant go scot free and unpunished by falsely implicating another person, be it her husband or any other person.”

The Court emphasized that injured witnesses' testimony stands on high evidentiary footing, particularly when corroborated by independent medical opinion and other eyewitnesses.

Husband Stabs Wife After Marital Dispute, Victim Hospitalised

The incident occurred on 21 January 2020, when the appellant allegedly entered the rented home of his estranged wife and stabbed her multiple times with a dagger. The victim, Rita Bala Basumatary (PW-1), was residing separately in the house of Rebati Brahma (PW-2) due to prior domestic violence. The appellant arrived at around 8:30 PM and stabbed her on the chest, abdomen and thumb. The victim was immediately shifted to Lower Assam Hospital, Bongaigaon, and remained under ICU care for two days.

The FIR was lodged after 13 days, which the prosecution explained was due to the victim’s hospitalization and serious condition.

Delay in FIR “Properly Explained”: Medical Emergency Justifies Late Reporting

Addressing the issue of delay in FIR registration, the Court held that the delay did not impair the prosecution case, as the victim was in the hospital and in intensive care.

“It is true that the victim had to fend for herself as she was attacked by her husband and there was a delay in lodgement of the FIR,” the Court noted, but clarified that the delay was “properly explained.”

The Court rejected the appellant’s plea that the FIR was fabricated or manipulated due to delay.

PW-1 and PW-2 Found Credible, Despite Minor Inconsistencies

The defence attacked the testimony of PW-2, the landlord, claiming she was an interested witness. However, the Court rejected this contention, holding:

“The argument that PW-2 is related to PW-1 holds no water. PW-2 has denied in her cross-examination that the victim is a distant relative.”

The testimonies of PW-1 (victim) and PW-2 (eyewitness) were consistent regarding the timing, nature, and manner of assault, and the injuries described matched the medical report (Exhibit P-5).

Minor contradictions—such as whether the gate was opened by the son or the maid, or whether bloodstained clothes were seized—were dismissed as “minor discrepancies” that do not affect the core prosecution case.

Non-identification of Weapon Not Sufficient to Overturn Conviction

Although both PW-1 and PW-2 failed to identify the seized knife (Material Exhibit MO-1) as the weapon used, and the Investigating Officer (PW-6) admitted that the weapon produced was not the same as the one seized from the scene, the High Court held: “The failure to produce the weapon of offence does not cause a dent in the evidence when the evidence is found to be credible and uncontroverted.”

Thus, the non-production or non-identification of the weapon was not fatal, as ocular testimony and medical findings corroborated the prosecution version.

Medical Opinion vs. Trial Court Findings: Injury Categorisation Discretion Lies With Trial Court

The doctor (PW-5) stated that two of the injuries were grievous, but admitted they were 100% curable and did not endanger life. The Trial Court concluded the injuries were simple in nature, and the High Court agreed, noting: “The decision relating to the nature of injury can be best made by the Trial Court after scrutinising the medical report and the opinion of the doctor. I record my concurrence to the decision of the Trial Court.”

The High Court emphasized that while medical opinion is valuable, the Trial Court’s interpretation of evidence carries weight, particularly when grounded in consistent reasoning.

Sentence Modified on Grounds of Age, Custody and Time Lapse

Noting the appellant’s age (63) and the fact that he had already undergone detention from 18.02.2020 to 05.05.2020, Justice Khaund held: “Much water has flowed under the bridge… I have considered the age of the appellant and the fact that he was behind Bars since 18.02.2020 up to 05.05.2020.”

Accordingly, the sentence of 1 year Simple Imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court was reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine of ₹10,000.

Domestic Violence, Even by Spouse, Must Face Legal Consequence

In affirming the conviction, the High Court reinforced the position that domestic violence, even if committed by a spouse, attracts penal liability, and the injured testimony of a wife cannot be lightly discarded, especially when it is consistent, corroborated, and unshaken under cross-examination.

“An injured person will never let her assailant go scot free… even if it be her husband,” the Court concluded, rejecting any attempt to dilute the seriousness of such domestic assaults.

Date of Decision: 03 December 2025