Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Psychological state of accused is clear. It can be believed that she is aware about what she is doing including the consequences thereof. Intention behind what is done and intensity while doing the thing, on the part of the accused are very much evident," High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant judgment dated July 1, 2026, upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a woman for the murder of her two minor children, observing that a mother killing her children out of spite against her husband constitutes murder and cannot be mitigated by a plea of abnormal mental state.

A bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma noted that the brutal nature of the injuries inflicted on the victims demonstrated a clear intent that distinguishes the act from cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The appellant, Golla Sunitha, was convicted by the Sessions Court for killing her three-year-old daughter and one-year-old son using a knife after her husband, an army personnel, failed to take her to his new place of posting. Following the killings, she attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries on her own head. She challenged the trial court's order before the High Court, primarily arguing that her psychological condition at the time of the incident was not normal.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 and Section 309 of the IPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the act of a mother killing her children in a state of frustration regarding matrimonial discord could be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder or if the defense of insanity was applicable.

Immediate Confession To Witnesses Relevant Under Res Gestae

The court observed that the statements made by the accused to her relatives and neighbors immediately after the incident were critical. These witnesses found her with a knife, hacking herself, while the children lay in a pool of blood. The bench noted that her immediate explanation—that she killed the children because her husband was not taking her to his workplace—forms part of the "same transaction" and is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

Court Rejects Plea To Commute Sentence Based On Mental State

The appellant’s counsel relied on precedents where mothers who attempted suicide with their children were granted leniency, treating the acts as culpable homicide. However, the High Court distinguished those cases, noting that in the present instance, the injuries to the children’s throats were "brutal, fatal and vital." The bench emphasized that such intensity of violence precludes any inference of a mere "abnormal state of mind" that would negate the intention to murder.

"The inflicting of the injuries on the children is so brutal, fatal and vital, when compared to the injuries on the body of the accused."

Defense Of Insanity Cannot Be Raised For The First Time In Appeal

The bench pointed out that the defense of physical, medical, or legal insanity was never canvassed during the trial. The court observed that the accused’s answers during her Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination were consistent and coherent. It held that the plea of a disturbed state of mind cannot be gathered from the factual context when the evidence suggests the accused was fully aware of the nature and consequences of her actions.

Accused Fails To Discharge Special Burden Regarding Deaths In Custody

The court highlighted that since the children were in the sole custody of the mother at the time of their death, she had a special burden to explain what had happened. Her defense theory—that her husband had hired assassins to kill the children and implicate her—was found to be "beyond comprehension and probability" given that the medical evidence showed her own injuries were self-inflicted and simple in nature.

"She has a special burden to prove as to what has happened to children and what has happened to her. The defence is not inspiring the confidence even with any remote probability."

Conviction For Attempted Suicide Under Section 309 IPC Upheld

Regarding the charge of attempting to commit suicide, the court noted that the accused’s own statements during the trial, where she claimed she "did not remember" what happened, did not constitute a denial of the act. The evidence from witnesses who saw her hacking her own head with a knife was found reliable. The bench concluded that the trial court’s findings on this charge were acceptable and sustainable in law.

Applicability Of Section 309 IPC Becomes Academic Under New Law

The bench briefly touched upon the fact that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) no longer treats the attempt to commit suicide as a standard offence. However, it held that since the sentence for Section 309 IPC was ordered to run concurrently with the life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, the issue of retrospective application of the new beneficial legislation remained purely academic in the present case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. The court held that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that there were no grounds to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. As the appellant was previously out on bail, the court directed her to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of her life sentence.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026