Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

High Court Acquits Parents in Infanticide Case: Act on Body Believed Lifeless Does Not Constitute Culpable Homicide

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court today acquitted a couple previously convicted for the murder of their infant daughter. The pivotal legal observation by the Honorable Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John stated, "Act on body believed to be lifeless does not constitute culpable homicide," setting a significant precedent in criminal jurisprudence.

The appellants, Prathibha and Bashdev, were initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Court for offenses under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to murder and the disposal of evidence. The case hinged on whether the act of disposing of a body, believed to be lifeless, could attract the offense of culpable homicide.

In the detailed judgment, the High Court meticulously analyzed the circumstances leading to the infant's death and the subsequent disposal of the body in the Arabian Sea. While the Sessions Court had found the couple guilty of murder and evidence disposal, it acquitted them of the grievous hurt charge.

The defense's main contention was the lack of knowledge about the infant's life at the time of disposal. The couple argued that they believed their child was already deceased, a point the prosecution contested. However, after evaluating the evidence and witness testimonies, the High Court found insufficient proof that the accused knew the child was alive when disposing of the body.

Referencing legal precedents and Section 299 of the IPC, the court concluded that an act performed on a body believed to be lifeless does not constitute culpable homicide. This interpretation was crucial in the decision to set aside the convictions.

As a result of this judgment, the accused couple was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case. This decision not only brings relief to the accused but also marks a significant moment in the legal landscape, addressing complex issues surrounding the interpretation of culpable homicide.

Date of Decision: 22nd November 2023

Bashdev VS State of Kerala Inspector of Police

 

Latest Legal News