SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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