Karnataka High Court Acquits Woman Accused Of Murdering Her Two Months Old Child By Throwing In River
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a woman for allegedly causing the death of her two months old girl-child, who was suffering from epilepsy and some respiratory problems, by throwing her into a river. A division bench of Justices KS Somashekar and Shivashankar Amarannavar acquitted the accused Kavitha who has been...
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a woman for allegedly causing the death of her two months old girl-child, who was suffering from epilepsy and some respiratory problems, by throwing her into a river.
A division bench of Justices KS Somashekar and Shivashankar Amarannavar acquitted the accused Kavitha who has been in custody for the last six years for committing an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench directed her forthwith release from prison if not wanted in any other case.
The criminal law was set into motion based on the complaint lodged by the child's father, Manjunatha.
The prosecution examined 15 witnesses whereas the accused denied the incriminating evidence. She, however, did not lead any defence evidence.
Subsequently, the trial Court, heavily relying on the evidence of the child's doctor, the doctor who conducted her autopsy and the Investigating Officer, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. It observed that from the circumstances and evidence produced before it, the only inference that can be drawn from the completed chain of events is that the accused threw the child into the river and killed her.
In appeal, Advocate RP Chandrashekar for the woman, alleged that her husband and the child's father who had initiated the complaint had turned hostile. It was further alleged that the evidence of her child's doctor does not support the case of the prosecution to prove that she has caused the death of her baby.
Moreover, it was argued that the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the last seen theory had also turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution.
Additional SPP Vijaykumar Majage on the other hand submitted that the accused threw the child since it was suffering with breathing problem and epilepsy and she did not have enough milk to feed the child. It was argued that the accused was well aware that a two months old child would drown in the river and it is with an intention to kill, that she threw it.
Findings:
The bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar & Ors. v. Superintendent & Remembrancer, AIR 1989 SC 2134, wherein it is held that the power of an Appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its power in appeals against convictions, but Appellate Court should always be re-appreciating the evidence and revisiting the entire evidence as well as marking of the documents on their part to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
It then said, "In the instant case, the Trial Court has given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.3 (child's doctor), PW.14 (doctor who conducted autopsy) and PW.15 (Investigating Officer)."
The High Court emphasized that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence which must weigh the Court's opinion. Further, it opined that the solitary statement of a witness can be considered only if the court comes to the conclusion that such statement is the true and also correct version of the case.
In this vein, the Court observed,
"In the instant case, the importance of corroboration of the evidence which was facilitated by the prosecution, it must be positive, cogent, consistent and probabalized that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. But in the instant case, Kavitha who is none other than the mother of the deceased baby aged two months, though the prosecution in their case put on trial of this accused, subjected examination of PW.1 to PW.15, but no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860."
Accordingly it held, "Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention. If not intervened by re-appreciation of evidence and also revisiting judgment of conviction and order of sentence, certainly there shall be some substantial miscarriage of justice to the accused, who is gravamen of the accusations."
Case Title: Kavitha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1372 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Date of Order: 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
Appearance: Advocate R.P. CHANDRASHEKAR, for Advocate C.H. HANUMANTHARAYA for appellants; ADDITIONAL SPP VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, for respondent