Prosecution Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Evidence Merely Because Delivery Occurred Inside Private Bathroom: Kerala High Court Acquits Mother In Infanticide Case

"In the absence of evidence establishing these crucial links, the prosecution's version remains an inference built upon suspicion rather than a conclusion founded on proven facts. In other words, the prosecution is in total darkness as to what had actually happened on the fateful day between 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m." Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, set aside the conviction and life sentence of a mother accused of murdering her newborn infant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

A division bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar observed that mere proximity to the scene of birth inside a private bathroom cannot substitute for foundational proof in a criminal trial resting entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The case originated from an incident on July 11, 2009, when the appellant allegedly delivered a child inside a bathroom near her husband's ancestral house in Kozhikode district and subsequently disposed of the body. The local police registered a First Information Report under Section 174 of the CrPC after a local resident noticed animal predation on the infant's body in a nearby coconut grove. Following a prolonged investigation that included DNA profiling and post-mortem examinations, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 318 of the IPC, sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for life.

The primary questions before the court were whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and whether the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act could be invoked without the prosecution proving foundational facts.

"Missing Links Are Fatal To Prosecution"

The bench reiterated the five golden principles laid down in the landmark ruling of Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court noted that the prosecution failed to recover the alleged weapon of strangulation or the sharp-edged instrument purportedly used to inflict post-mortem chop-cut wounds on the infant.

"No Eyewitness To Custody Or Disposal"

The judges pointed out that although material witnesses—specifically the appellant's sister-in-law and a neighbor—testified that the appellant remained inside the bathroom for nearly two and a half hours, none of them witnessed the birth of the child or saw the appellant carrying or disposing of the infant's body in the nearby property. The court observed that building a narrative on mere suspicion without establishing how the appellant walked 100 meters to dispose of the body is legally unsustainable.

"Motive Loses Significance Or Becomes Pivotal Based On Evidence"

Analyzing the question of motive, the court examined precedents including Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, noting that while proof of motive forms a vital link in circumstantial cases, the prosecution's theory that the child was killed to conceal an illegitimate pregnancy stood contradicted by the admission of prosecution witnesses that they were already aware of her pregnancy.

"Section 106 Cannot Relieve Prosecution Of Initial Burden"

Addressing the trial court's reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the bench cited the classical exposition of Justice Vivian Bose in Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, stressing that the provision is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that because the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts, the appellant could not be called upon to explain circumstances under her special knowledge.

"Benefit Of Doubt Must Be Accorded"

Invoking the established criminal jurisprudence principle articulated in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the bench concluded that where two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the interpretation favorable to the accused must prevail.

Consequently, the criminal appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, was set aside. The court ordered the immediate release of the appellant unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.

Date of Decision: 03 August 2026