Skip to content

Daniel Syiemiong v. State of Meghalaya

Murder Trial – Son killed his father – Accused made a statement that he could no longer bear the ill treatment meted out to his mother, brother and sister by his father and losing control attacked him by hitting him on his head with an iron rod and had no intention to kill his father – The accused asserted before the trial judge that he did not show any iron rod to the police or to any other person as he did not hit his father with an iron rod but hit him with a firewood and do not know how and why the police seized the iron rod – In the light of the lucid clarification issued by the accused in the course of his two statements rendered under Section 313 of the Code and the detailed description of the incident, there can be no doubt that it was the accused who killed his father by striking him with a firewood that he found lying in the nearby verandah – the reference to the iron rod is in the statement of the accused recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. The statement was recorded in Khasi language and the translated version of the statement appears from the records –  the accused may have no formal education as he stated that he had not been sent to any school by his father. The description of a firewood stick and an iron rod may be similar in Khasi language – In the light of the clear, unambiguous and detailed description of the incident given by the accused in the course of his statement under Section 313 of the Code and the post-mortem report corroborating the nature of the injuries and cause of death which are in tune with the injuries that the accused himself admitted to have inflicted on his father – When the facts are as clear as in the present case, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the conclusion drawn from such facts by the trial court or the sentence rendered as a consequence.

Citation : 2022 Cri. L.J. 1594