Conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence cannot be made unless chain of circumstances is established.

Sarthak Khandelwal | Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law, NMIMS University, Mumbai | 17th December 2019

Manju vs State of Delhi., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1268 OF 2013

Facts of Case:

The appellant herein was admitted in the maternity ward of the Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital and delivered a baby girl around 12:30 in the afternoon on 24.08.07.

It is the case of the prosecution that as the new born was a baby girl, as such the appellant-mother has caused her death by strangulation after baby was handed over to her at 04:30 pm on 24.08.07, and on the 26.08.07 post-mortem was conducted on the dead body and the doctor opined that cause of death was asphyxia caused due to ante mortem strangulation.

On 31.08.07 a case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, for causing death of her new born baby. she pleaded her innocence and deposed that she has been falsely implicated by the police in collusion with the hospital authorities, to shift the blame from doctors on duty.

The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, New Delhi held the appellant-accused is guilty for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- as the chain of circumstance is complete and case has been proved beyond doubt.

The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the High Court and the High Court, confirmed the sentence and conviction imposed on the appellant.

The council from the appellant side submitted that the appellant had no reason to commit the murder of her new born baby girl as she already had a male child and her parent in-law had died even before she was married. By referring to the oral evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, it is submitted that even according to the deposition of said witnesses it is clearly established that the new born was kept in the incubator with an oxygen mask. Further the appellant-mother was sleepy in view of the drugs administered on her and by the time she has seen the child, the new born was dead.

The husband of the appellant was examined by the prosecution and he stated that on 24.08.07 on the same day at around 12:00 noon appellant gave birth to a female baby. He was called to the labour room and the nurse had shown him the new born baby and at that time eyes of the baby were closed. She was not moving and she was not weeping. He has also stated that there was also a red mark on the nose of the child. At around 05:00 pm again when he was called by the nurse and he was informed that child had expired and on questioning, staff have not given any reason for death. And was not allowed not meet her until the post-mortem was done.

HELD :

There is no evidence on record to draw a conclusion against the appellant that she killed because she was girl. but the inference can be made from prosecution’s witness that as they already had a male child of the age of 5 years. He has also stated that as they already had a male child, they wanted a female child to complete the family. He further stated that his brother had three daughters which shows that the family was not orthodox and was not averse to have a female child.

It is true that in the post-mortem, cause of death came out was asphyxia and there were marks of strangulation, but at the same time if totality of evidence on record is considered, motive is not established and it is totally unnatural for the appellant-mother to kill her own baby by strangulation. It is also clear from the record that in view of the drugs administered on her she was sleepy and drowsy. In absence of any clear evidence on record, High Court as well as the Trial Court committed error, in attributing motive to the appellant that, she has killed her baby as she was female.

From the totality of evidence on record it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with an oxygen mask and she has also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after birth. There was a possibility of natural death.  Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on record it is not safe to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As the evidence on record is not sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We are having a sufficient view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, for acquittal from the charge framed against her.

The judgment of the trial court as well as the judgment of the High Court of Delhi are set aside and consequently the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her.

• It is clear from the record that the conviction of the appellant herein is based on circumstantial evidence. By considering the oral evidence on record and taking into consideration the post-mortem report, the appellant was convicted for the offence by attributing motive that she has strangulated her because the new born is a baby girl. There is no evidence on record to draw such a conclusion against the appellant.
• It is true that in the post-mortem, doctor has opined that death is due to asphyxia and there were marks of strangulation, but at the same time if totality of evidence on record is considered, motive is not established and it is totally unnatural for the appellant-mother to kill her own baby by strangulation.
• It is also clear from the record that in view of the drugs administered on her she was sleepy and drowsy. In absence of any clear evidence on record, High Court as well as the Trial Court committed error, in attributing motive to the appellant that, she has killed her baby as she was female.
• The Trial court as well as the High Court has based conviction on presumptions without any basis. It is fairly well settled that to base conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence, unless chain of circumstances is established conviction cannot be recorded. From the totality of evidence on record it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with an oxygen mask and she has also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after birth. There was a possibility of natural death.
• Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on record it is not safe to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
• As the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, for acquittal from the charge framed against her.
• For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal by the High Court of Delhi are set aside, consequently the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her. As the appellant is on bail, her bail bonds stand cancelled.