IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala 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

Similar News