{"id":405,"date":"2020-04-23T10:29:51","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:29:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=405"},"modified":"2021-01-17T11:56:00","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T11:56:00","slug":"it-is-well-settled-that-to-base-conviction-solely-on-the-circumstantial-evidence-unless-chain-of-circumstances-is-established-conviction-cannot-be-recorded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/it-is-well-settled-that-to-base-conviction-solely-on-the-circumstantial-evidence-unless-chain-of-circumstances-is-established-conviction-cannot-be-recorded\/","title":{"rendered":"Conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence cannot be made unless chain of circumstances is established."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Sarthak Khandelwal | Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law, NMIMS University, Mumbai | 17th December\u00a02019 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manju vs State of Delhi., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1268 OF 2013<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts of Case:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nappellant herein was admitted in the maternity ward of the Lady Hardinge\nMedical College Hospital and delivered a baby girl around 12:30 in the\nafternoon on 24.08.07.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is the case of the prosecution\nthat as the new born was a baby girl, as\nsuch the appellant-mother has caused her death by strangulation after baby was handed\nover to her at 04:30 pm on 24.08.07, and on the 26.08.07 post-mortem\nwas conducted on the dead body and the doctor opined that cause of death was\nasphyxia caused due to ante mortem strangulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 31.08.07 a case\nwas registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, for\ncausing death of her new born baby. she\npleaded her innocence and deposed that she has been falsely implicated by the\npolice in collusion with the hospital authorities, to shift the blame from\ndoctors on duty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ncourt of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, New Delhi held the\nappellant-accused is guilty for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC\nand imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of\nRs.2000\/- as the chain of circumstance is complete and case has been proved\nbeyond doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nappellant carried the matter in appeal to the High Court and the High Court,\nconfirmed the sentence and conviction imposed on the appellant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The council from the appellant side\nsubmitted that the appellant had no reason to commit the murder of her new born\nbaby girl as she already had a male child and her parent in-law had died even\nbefore she was married. By referring to the oral evidence of the witnesses of\nthe prosecution, it is submitted that even according to the deposition of said witnesses\nit is clearly established that the new born was kept in the incubator with an\noxygen mask. Further the appellant-mother was sleepy in view of the drugs administered\non her and by the time she has seen the child, the new born was dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The husband of the\nappellant was examined by the prosecution and he stated that on 24.08.07 on the\nsame day at around 12:00 noon appellant gave birth to a female baby. He\nwas called to the labour room and the nurse had shown him the new born baby and\nat that time eyes of the baby were closed. She was not moving and she was not\nweeping. He has also stated that there was also a red mark on the nose of the\nchild. At around 05:00 pm again when he was called by the nurse and he was\ninformed that child had expired and on questioning, staff have not given any\nreason for death. And was not allowed not meet her until the post-mortem was\ndone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HELD :<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no\nevidence on record to draw a conclusion against the appellant that she killed\nbecause she was girl. but the inference can be made from prosecution\u2019s witness\nthat as they already had a male child of the age of 5 years. He has also stated\nthat as they already had a male child, they wanted a female child to complete\nthe family. He further stated that his brother had three daughters which shows\nthat the family was not orthodox and was not averse to have a female child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

From the totality\nof evidence on record it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with\nan oxygen mask and she has also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after\nbirth. There was a possibility of natural death.\u00a0 Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem\nreport, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on\nrecord it is not safe to convict the appellant for the offence\nunder Section 302 IPC. As the evidence\non record is not sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond\nreasonable doubt. We are having a sufficient view that the appellant is\nentitled to benefit of doubt, for acquittal from the charge framed against her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment of the trial court as well as\nthe judgment of the High Court of Delhi are set aside and consequently the\nappellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n