Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has acquitted a woman accused of murdering her two children by throwing them into the Moolampilly River. The Court, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur, found that the prosecution had failed to establish a strong motive or conclusive evidence to support the charge of murder.

A Division bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, observed that the motive for the murder, as alleged by the prosecution, was a minor argument between the woman and her husband over purchasing ice cream, which the court found too trivial to justify such a heinous act. The court noted “We cannot believe, even for a moment that a mother for such a silly reason would throw her own children into the river and murder them.”

The accused woman, along with her two minor children, was reported missing on the evening of December 4, 2015. The next day, the accused was found alive and rescued from the river, but her children, the daughter Sherin, aged 7 and the son, Antony Shown, aged 4 and a half years, had drowned. On December 6,2015, her daughter’s body was found, followed by her son’s body on December 7,2015.

The police registered a case alleging that Sindhu had jumped into the river with her children, but escaped herself. After investigation, the final report accused Sindhu of murdering her children by throwing them off the Moolampilly bridge into the river. According to the prosecution, the woman allegedly threw her children into the river, following an argument with her husband over money for buying ice cream and with her mother-in law, who threatened to consume poison, soon after which she left for church with her children.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of her two children and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The court’s reasoning for the conviction was primarily based on the fact that the children were last seen in the company of the accused. The trial court held that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden was on the accused to explain what happened to the children while they were in her custody. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused, the court presumed that she had murdered the children by throwing them into the river, leading to her conviction.

Advocate K.V. Sabu, representing the accused, argued that the prosecution had not proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the absence of any direct evidence or a compelling motive. It was contended that the "last seen" theory presented by the prosecution did not conclusively prove that the accused was responsible for the deaths.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor Bindu O.V., argued that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, urging the court to uphold the trial court’s ruling.

The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the court acknowledged that there was no direct evidence to establish the charge, emphasising that the law on circumstantial evidence is well-settled: where a case is based solely on such evidence, the evidence must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused, ruling out any other hypothesis. This principle was reiterated in Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023).

The court also outlined the "five golden principles" (Panchasheel) governing circumstantial evidence were laid out in Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra (1984 (4) SCC 116), where the Supreme Court emphasised that:

• The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established;
• The established facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt;
• The circumstances should be conclusive in nature;
• They must exclude all possible hypotheses except the guilt of the accused;
• The chain of evidence must be so complete as to rule out any reasonable alternative hypothesis and point only to the accused's guilt.

Additionally, the court noted that the "last seen" theory alone could not conclusively prove the accused's guilt, especially when there was a significant time gap between when the children were last seen alive and when their bodies were discovered. The possibility of third-party involvement in the drowning could not be ruled out, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the circumstances presented by the prosecution, did not form a chain of evidence so complete as to leave no reasonable doubt regarding the innocence of the accused. Instead, the court found that the evidence provided reasonable grounds for a conclusion pointing towards the accused's innocence. It was found that her son had died more than 13 hours after the accused was rescued from the river, the court held that involvement of third parties in the drowning of the children could not be ruled out and in such circumstances, the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

As a result, the court acquitted the accused and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside.

 

Cause Title: Sindhu @ Kochuthressia v State of Kerala [CRL.A NO. 1224 OF 2017]