IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Medical Evidence Reveals One Child Died 13 Hours After Accused’s Rescue: Kerala High Court Acquits Mother Convicted of Killing Her Children

26 September 2024 12:51 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Kerala High Court, in the case of Sindhu @ Kochuthressia v. State of Kerala, allowed the appeal of a mother convicted of murdering her two minor children, Sherin (7) and Antony Shown (4½), by throwing them into the Moolampilly River. The High Court overturned the life imprisonment sentence, acquitting the mother based on an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, lack of motive, and inconsistencies in medical findings.

The case originated from an incident on December 4, 2015, when Sindhu and her two children were reported missing after attending a church festival in Kadamakudy Village. She was later found alive in the river the next morning, and the bodies of her two children were recovered in the following days. The prosecution alleged that Sindhu, upset over family disputes, had murdered her children by throwing them into the river from a bridge. The trial court convicted her under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing her to life imprisonment.

The prosecution’s case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, and invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of explanation onto the accused. The key legal questions were:

Whether the circumstantial evidence conclusively established the accused's guilt.

Whether the time and manner of death of the children corroborated the prosecution’s theory.

Whether the absence of a clear motive affected the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

The court emphasized that for circumstantial evidence to result in conviction, the evidence must form a complete chain that leads directly to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove the chain of events, particularly due to discrepancies regarding the recovery of the children’s bodies from different locations and unexplained gaps in the timeline.

The postmortem reports indicated that one of the children, Antony Shown, died 13 hours after Sindhu was rescued from the river, which directly contradicted the prosecution's claim that both children were thrown into the river simultaneously. The medical evidence, which showed no signs of drowning until hours after Sindhu's rescue, heavily weighed against the prosecution's case.

"As per the medical evidence, Antony Shown was alive at least till 9:15 p.m. on 5.12.2015, while the accused was rescued from the river at 8 a.m. on the same day." – Para 45

The court found that the "last seen" theory, which suggested that the children were last seen with their mother, could not independently establish her guilt. Given the significant time gap between their disappearance and the discovery of their bodies, the court ruled that this theory was insufficient to sustain a conviction without corroborative evidence.

"Where the time gap is long, it would be unsafe to base the conviction solely on the 'last seen theory'." – Para 28

The prosecution had alleged that family disputes, particularly with the accused's mother-in-law, were the motive behind the crime. However, the court found no concrete evidence of such animosity, and emphasized that even if there was familial discord, it was not strong enough to justify such a heinous act as filicide.

"We cannot believe, even for a moment, that a mother for such a silly reason would throw her own children into the river and murder them." – Para 64

The court highlighted several critical lapses in the prosecution’s investigation. For instance, the prosecution failed to establish the exact location from which the children were thrown into the river. Moreover, key material evidence, such as the recovery of a pair of shoes and balloons from the alleged crime scene, was not adequately linked to the children.

"There is no evidence to show that MOs 1, 3, and 4 belonged to the children or the accused." – Para 43

The defense argued that after attending the church festival, the children went missing, and the accused was later found floating in the river. The court did not entirely dismiss this version, noting that the prosecution failed to disprove the possibility of an alternative sequence of events.

In light of the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, inconsistencies in medical reports, and the absence of a clear motive, the Kerala High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove Sindhu's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and life sentence were set aside, and Sindhu was acquitted.

"The circumstances brought in evidence leave reasonable ground for the conclusion leading to the innocence of the accused." – Para 69

 

Date of Decision: 25 September 2024

Sindhu @ Kochuthressia v. State of Kerala

Latest Legal News