A Kerala court has awarded life imprisonment to Thodupuzha resident Rose Mary @ Kuttiyakka for causing the death of her newborn baby by strangulation in 2014.
Smt. Ash K. Bal, I Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court under POCSO Act and Children's Act, Thodupuzha found her guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution case was that the accused, who was living separately from her husband for the last several years, gave birth to a baby boy in secret and with the intention and premeditation to commit his murder, pressed around his neck. It is stated that she kept him in a plastic cover, after wrapping in a bedsheet, and left him in the cattle shed near to her house.
A 16-year-old boy residing nearby saw the abandoned infant and informed the matter to PW1 ward member, who went to the accused's house along with his wife. The infant was found alive at this time and even though he was given treatment, he did not survive. The accused was found with her nightie full of blood but she denied that the child was hers.
The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked 22 documents. The evidence was tendered by the doctors, who examined the infant as well as the accused.
The doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the infant, had deposed that he was born alive and death was due to blunt force injury to the neck. It was opined that the injuries would not have been caused in a vaginal delivery or due to a fall.
The doctors that examined the accused had deposed to the effect that the accused had given birth recently. One of these doctors had also given evidence that the accused did not have symptoms of postpartum depression.
The court considered points, including whether the accused gave birth to the deceased child, whether the death was culpable homicide, and whether the accused murdered him.
The court weighed the evidence tendered, including the medical evidence as well as the testimony by the accused's mother and other prosecution witnesses that interacted with the accused, to come to the conclusion that there was motive and that the prosecution had successfully established complete chain of circumstances.
It observed:
"Here in the case, the material evidence and circumstances bring out by the prosecution points towards the guilt of the accused only and are sufficient to establish the case of prosecution. From the evidence tendered by material witnesses, especially...the mother of the accused, it is evident that the accused was abandoned by her husband for about 8 years back and was living separately. In the said circumstance, when the child was born , she might have done the act due to the fear of the society. Even then the act done by the accused is nothing but sheer murder. So the motive of the accused is also evident from the circumstances of the case."
The court also opined that the act of the accused amounted to murder punishable under Section 300 IPC.
While considering sentence, the accused applied for pardon and stated that she has an 85-year-old mother, who is residing alone. Though the counsel advanced an argument that the accused was having a mental condition, no documents or materials were produced to prove the same, the court noted.
"At the time of interacting with the convict to elicit facts, at the time of hearing on question of sentence, she has given reasonable answers and there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the convict. It is to be noted that during the course of trial or not even at the time of examination under Section 313 CrPC, convict or her counsel raised such a contention," it added.
The court sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000. It also referred the case to the government in accordance with Rule 131 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and the High Court decision in State of Kerala v. Salini (2010).
Public prosecutor: Rajesh P.S.
Counsel for the accused: John Joseph