'Mother Can’t Kill Her Infant': Supreme Court Acquits Woman in 2006 Filicide Case

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih opined that it was difficult to reconcile that the appellant, Neelam Kumari was cold-blooded enough to strangle her own child but urgently sought medical help for that child shortly thereafter.

Setting aside the judgment of December 11, 2009, by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of life term upon the appellant, court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It further pointed out, the alleged extra-judicial confessions by the appellant in the case suffered from serious infirmities and could not be relied upon, and the circumstantial evidence, too, did not form a complete chain conclusively pointing towards her guilt.

According to the prosecution, complainant Nikku Ram married the appellant with the consent of his first wife, as she was unable to bear a child. He provided a separate residence to his first wife, Nirmala Dev,i in his ancestral village. In 2005, the appellant gave birth to a male child. The appellant never visited the ancestral village of Katli, and she used to dissuade her husband from visiting the said village.

However, upon the death of Nikku Ram's father on December 3, 2006, the appellant only visited the village on December 8, 2006, along with her infant child. On December 9, 2006, the child was found dead, having been strangulated with a 'dupatta'. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia.

The appellant was also alleged to have made an extrajudicial confession before her husband and two other witnesses. She allegedly caused the recovery of the 'dupatta' with blood and human skin tissues.

In her version, the appellant-woman claimed she stayed during the night at the village, but in the morning, she found the child unresponsive and took the child to the hospital.

In its analysis and the findings, court noted her conviction rested significantly on alleged extra-judicial confessions.

It pointed out that extrajudicial confessions are generally considered weak evidence and should be corroborated by other, independent evidence. In this regard, the bench cited Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012).

This position of law has been followed in a plethora of judgments of this Court, including SK. Yusuf vs. State of West Bengal (2011), Pancho vs. State of Haryana (2011) and Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012). Further, this court in Chandrapal vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Earlier M.P.) (2022) declared ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession, the bench said.

Court noted one of the women, namely Sita Devi, who was allegedly a non-interested witness to the extrajudicial confession, was never examined by the prosecution. In the case of Gaurav Maini vs. The State of Haryana (2024) it has been held that non-examination of a relevant witness at the trial persuades the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution, the bench said.

Since, beyond the alleged confessions, the case of the prosecution rested heavily on circumstantial evidence, the apex court noted that the appellant’s whereabouts during the most critical period were not conclusively established.

On medical evidence, court found a significant time gap between the injuries and the death, which weakened the prosecution’s ability to establish an unbroken chain of events leading inexorably to the conclusion of the appellant’s guilt. It opined that numerous events could have transpired, and various individuals other than the appellant could have had access to the child.

The bench also said the recovery and treatment of the alleged murder weapon was "similarly troubling". The dupatta was never shown to the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, which created a fundamental disconnect in the chain of evidence, the court said.

"We also note that while the forensic examination reportedly found blood stains and human skin tissues on the dupatta, there is no evidence establishing that these materials belonged to the deceased child himself. Therefore, their presence on the dupatta cannot be conclusively linked to the offence. Common items of clothing may contain various biological materials from everyday use, and without specific identification, such evidence remains ambiguous at best. The finding that the cause of death 'could be due to throttling' is also tentative,'' the bench said.

Court also found it pertinent to point out that if the appellant had indeed killed her child, her subsequent conduct was difficult to reconcile with guilt. Rather than attempting to conceal the crime or flee, she proceeded to the village to seek medical assistance for the child.

"Logically, such behaviour is more consistent with innocence than guilt. At the very least, represents a significant inconsistency in the prosecution’s narrative. It is difficult to reconcile that the appellant was cold-blooded enough to strangle her own child but urgently sought medical help for that child shortly thereafter,'' the bench said.

Coming to the issue of motive, the bench said, this court has repeatedly affirmed that the strength of the motive plays a crucial role in establishing the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

"While a weak or absent motive alone may not be sufficient to acquit an accused if other circumstances form a complete chain pointing unerringly to guilt, it significantly weighs in favour of the accused and creates a reasonable doubt,'' the bench said, citing Anwar Ali & Anr. vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2020).

The court thus held that the prosecution had failed to establish any convincing motive for the appellant to commit the murder of her own child.

"The suggestion that the appellant killed her child because her husband visited the village for the last rites of his recently deceased father defies logic, given that she herself visited village Katli along with him and their child on 8th December, 2006. Moreover, such an extreme act runs completely contrary to the natural instinct of a mother of an infant child,'' the bench said.

Court finally allowed the appeal and acquitted the woman of the offence alleged against her.