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 culprit and adduce evidence regarding the procedure. In the present scenario, the investigating agency located the first accused with the assistance of dog-tracking evidence, which can only be considered as an aid to the investigation.”

The court acknowledged that the motive behind the crime was of importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the motive, the prosecution brought in the strained relationship between Saranya and her husband. A portion in her notebook where this was mentioned was produced and the prosecution used the specimen handwriting of Saranya to prove that she wrote it.

There was another writing in the notebook, “I hate you.... Viyan Valsaraj”, which the court felt would have indicated a strong motive behind the case. However, since the prosecution did not attempt to identify the handwriting through her husband or mother and did not send it to handwriting analysis, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove that this was written by Saranya.

Since the deceased child was last seen with Saranya, the court relied on the last seen theory and found that Saranya had the burden to prove what happened to the child after she was with him. Considering the window of period of death and the presence of coagulated milk present in the stomach of the child in the postmortem certificate, this was an adverse inference against her.

“It is a proven fact that the child was last seen together with his mother just a few hours before the death, and no other evidence for the appearance of the first accused or deceased elsewhere, which confirms the theory of the last seen together. The next morning, the child was found dead on the seawall. That being so, she had special knowledge regarding the disappearance of the child from her custody, and she failed to offer any explanations regarding the death of the child. Consequently, reasonable inferences can be drawn against the accused regarding the existence of the foundational facts,” the court remarked.

The prosecution had also tried to prove previous bad character of Saranya but the court discarded these and observed:

“According to Section 54 of the Evidence Act, the previous bad character of the accused is not relevant except in reply. Therefore, the prosecution cannot adduce evidence regarding the bad character of the accused unless there is evidence of good character put forward by the accused. Unfortunately, the police investigation was conducted as moral policing, and some evidence has been adduced to prove the bad character of the first accused.”

Though certain omissions and contradictions were pointed out by the defence, the court felt that these were not material or significant to shake the prosecution case, especially taking note of the fact that the incident happened in 2020 and the evidence was led five years later.

The defence also made a case that the police ought to have conducted an investigation into Saranya's mental status and even put forth questions to the investigation officer regarding the same but he stated that since there were no symptoms of any mental illness, he did not take steps for the same.

The court held that as per Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden was on the accused to prove the same and since she had not raised a contention that the act was done under the influence of insanity or unsoundness of mind, the investigation officer nor the court was obliged to conduct a medical examination.

Coming to the role the co-accused, Nidhin, the court noted that there was no communication between him and Saranya immediately before or after the incident and therefore, his involvement in the crime was doubtful.

“If there was any instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding by the second accused and the act was committed in pursuance of his abatement, definitely, there would have been frequent calls soon before and after the incident. In the absence of such communication, the chance of abatement and conspiracy by the second accused to commit the murder can be negated,” observed the Court.

The Court also pointed out certain flaws in the investigation and the conduct of the trial by the prosecution, including the failure to attempt the prove the writing at the back of Saranya's notebook as hers, prosecution attempting to lead the witnesses, adducing of evidence to prove the accused's 'bad' character, etc.

“The investigation conducted in the present case reflects a lack of professionalism and sensitivity expected in the investigation of a grave offence like murder. He appears to have acted in a casual and mechanical manner, resulting in serious lapses in the case… The conduct of the investigating officer and the public prosecutor calls for serious administrative scrutiny,” the Court remarked.

Next, considering the sentence to be awarded to Saranya, the Court took note of the aggravating and mitigation circumstances. It felt that death penalty was not warranted in this case and observed:

“The quantum of the sentence is not intended to satisfy the thirst of society for sensationalism or media attention. It should be analyzed from the perspective of reformist theory… On that account, considering the younger age, low-income family background, absence of criminal antecedents and other socio-economic conditions of the accused, the balance sheet of the circumstances indicates a greater likelihood of reform.”

It thus sentenced Saranya to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.