Kerala Court Sentences Woman Who Threw One-Year-Old Son Into Sea To Undergo Life Imprisonment

The Additional District and Sessions Court, Taliparamba on Thursday (January 22) sentenced Saranya Valsaraj to life imprisonment for committing the murder of her one-and-a-half-year-old son, Viyan, in 2020.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sri. Prasanth K.N. found Saranya guilty of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that her guilt was proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The court observed:“The prosecution has succeeded in proving the chain of circumstances that corroborates the guilt of the first accused in a complete and unbroken manner. Considering the integrity of the circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of murder against the first accused without any hollow of suspicion.” The court acquitted the co-accused Nidhin P., who was alleged to be her co-conspirator and abettor of the murder, of all charges. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against him:“There is no case for the prosecution that he was involved in the actual commission of the crime. There is no evidence for the overt act of the second accused regarding the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding to commit the murder of the child. The evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the conspiracy is not sufficient to array him as either a conspirator or an abettor in the act of homicide done by the first accused. Therefore, this court views that there is no overt act that has been proved against the second accused as alleged by the prosecution.”It also acquitted Saranya of the offences under Section 109 and 120B IPC and observed: “the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent evidence to establish an agreement or meeting of minds between the accused to commit the murder of the child. The proof of an extramarital affair, the transfer of documents and the frequent calls between the lovers are wholly sufficient to attract the offence of criminal conspiracy. Even the material on records generates a suspicion that cannot substitute for legal proof. The prosecution's case rests on suspicion arising from moral disapproval of the relationship rather than on legally admissible evidence.”The prosecution allegation was that since Saranya and her husband was having a strained marital relationship, she was living at her maternal house near Thayyil beach along with her family and the deceased Viyan. It was also alleged that Saranya and Nidhin, who were in an extramarital relationship, decided to live together and therefore, they hatched a conspiracy in front a bank to cast aside the child by murdering him.According to the prosecution, on the early hours of the date of the incident, Saranya picked up the child from the bedroom in which they were sleeping in along with her husband and took him to the hall to breastfeed him. Thereafter, she took him out of the house and threw him into the sea from the seawall, resulting in his death.Later, in the morning, she informed her husband that the child was missing and the family and their neighbours looked for him. Initially, what was registered as a man missing case was converted into a murder investigation after finding the dead body of the child on the seawall. They were accused of Sections 302 [Murder], 120B [Conspiracy] and 109 [Punishment for abetment] IPC.The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, motive, last seen theory, dog tracking evidence, scientific evidence, motive, confession, etc. in presenting their case. The defence did not adduce any evidence but challenged the prosecution case, pointing to the lack of direct evidence, procedural irregularities in the investigation, contradictions in the witness statements, etc.The evidence rendered by Saranya's husband/the child's father was mainly used by the prosecution to prove part of the chain of events.As per the medical evidence, there were ante mortem injuries on the body of the child and the cause of death was found to be due to blunt injury sustained on the head. It was confirmed that death was not caused due to drowning but as a result of throwing the child . The scene of occurrence was confirmed based on the traces of bloodstains on the granite stone of the seawall, proved by witness statements and photos of the place. The presence of seawater in the clothes worn by Saranya proved in scientific examination was not explained by the defence.Based on the confession rendered by Saranya, the police recovered her notebook, her chappals and several documents belonging to co-accused Nidhin. The prosecution had presented the dog-tracking report and the evidence by the dog handler to prove that Saranya was traced out as an accused using the same. However, the court refused to take into consideration these evidences and observed:“Because the evidence of a sniffer dog is not subject to cross-examination and cannot be treated as direct evidence, it is subject to the hearsay rule… A causa de cy, the investigating agency can use dog-tracking evidence to find a...

Kerala Court Sentences Woman Who Threw One-Year-Old Son Into Sea To Undergo Life Imprisonment

K. Salma Jennath

Tags