Kerala HC acquits mother accused of killing newborn to hide illegitimate pregnancy

The Kerala High Court has overturned the life sentence of a woman accused of murdering her newborn. The Court regarded the prosecution's failure to establish a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence. Emphasizing that the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not relieve the state of its duty to prove foundational facts, the Kerala High Court held that the mere presence of the accused in a bathroom followed by the discovery of a body nearby is insufficient to sustain a murder charge without proving the intermediate acts of commission.

A division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment while hearing an appeal against the conviction handed down by the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The appellant had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for offences under Section 302 and Section 318 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 following the discovery of an infant's body in a coconut grove.

Key Takeaways

Circumstantial Integrity Essential

Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require an unbreakable chain where every link points exclusively to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.

Section 106 Not a Prosecution Shield

Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the foundational facts of a crime; it only applies when facts are exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused.

Motive in Circumstantial Evidence

In cases lacking direct eyewitnesses, the absence of a proven motive assumes great significance and necessitates a more rigorous scrutiny of the evidence to prevent conjecture from replacing proof.

Benefit of Doubt Mandate

If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted as per established criminal jurisprudence.

Evidence in Homicidal Death

While the Court acknowledged the medical evidence provided by State of W.B v. Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors. regarding the homicidal nature of the infant's death, Kerala High Court noted that DNA profiling alone, while proving maternity, did not prove the act of murder. The Court observed that there was a total absence of evidence explaining what transpired inside the bathroom or how the accused, in a weakened post-delivery state, could have disposed of the body 100 meters away unnoticed.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the absence of evidence establishing these crucial links, the prosecution's version remains an inference built upon suspicion rather than a conclusion founded on proven facts. In other words, the prosecution is in total darkness as to what had actually happened on the fateful day between 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., whether the accused gave birth to a child and if so, who committed the murder and who concealed the body..."

Ratio

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt before the burden of providing an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be shifted to the accused. A conviction cannot be sustained where there are missing links regarding the actus reus, and the court must grant the benefit of doubt if the evidence is capable of supporting a hypothesis of innocence.

Background

The prosecution alleged that on July 11, 2009, the accused smothered and strangulated her newborn inside a bathroom to conceal an illegitimate birth, later disposing of the body in a nearby property. Witnesses noticed bloodstains and the accused's long duration in the bathroom. The trial court relied on Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to convict her, citing the "last seen together" theory. However, the High Court noted that the weapons for strangulation and the alleged chop wounds were never recovered. The Bench referred to the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra ( "(1984) 4 SCC 116": 1984 CaseBase(SC) 194) and Hanumant v. State of M.P. regarding the 'Panchsheel' of circumstantial evidence. Further, relying on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ( "(1973) 2 SCC 808": 1973 CaseBase(SC) 41) and M.G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, especially since family members were already aware of the pregnancy. Consequently, the conviction was set aside due to the failure to establish a conclusive chain of evidence as required by Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh and Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer ( "1956 SCC OnLine SC 27": 1956 CaseBase(SC) 77).

Case Details:

Case No.: CRL.A NO.292 OF 2020

Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:58170

Case Title: SABEENA G.K. v. STATE OF KERALA

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s): SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.D.FEROZE, SRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN

For the Respondent(s): Smt. Sareena George (Public Prosecutor)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 7416