Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence For Mother Who Killed Her 5-Year Old Child

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reiterated that when there is concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Apex Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence to examine the correctness of such findings of fact, unless there is manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence. A Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed the order in a plea challenging conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on a mother for killing her child, which was eventually affirmed by the Madras High Court. Background Vahitha (appellant) was convicted for the offence of murder of her five-year-old child in the house of her mother-in-law. It is the prosecution’s case that Vahitha, whose husband was living abroad, had killed her child as she considered it to be an impediment in moving to her natal home. The child was last seen with Vahitha and when the mother-in-law and other witnesses reached the scene of crime, she had run away. The Trial Court convicted her for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court. Analysis by the Supreme Court The Court noted that concurrent findings of the courts below had been assailed in a manner inviting re-appreciation of entire evidence. In this regard, relying on precedents, the court reiterated that the Apex Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by the trial court and approved by the High Court. Concurrent findings of fact ought not to be reopened in a special leave petition unless the same is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or is perverse or has disregarded a vital piece of information. Addressing the arguments regarding discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the Court stated that minor contradictions which do not affect the core of the case should not be a ground for rejecting the prosecution evidence in its entirety. On the issue of closely related witnesses, the Court reiterated the settled principle that the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses were related to the deceased. The Court noted that though the accused have a right to remain silent during investigation and at the stage of examination under 313 CrPC, but if they do not avail this opportunity, then it may result in drawing adverse inference in accordance with law. It observed that if the accused offers no explanation; or provides wrong explanation; absconds; motive is established; and there is corroborative evidence available forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. In the present case, the plea of alibi put forth by the father of the accused was that she went back to her natal home in Kolakkudi and was not in Perambalur as claimed by the prosecution. All other witnesses, including independent witnesses, had testified otherwise. They said that they had seen the accused sitting near the body of the deceased child immediately after and at the place of the incident. The Apex Court did not find merit in the plea of alibi. The Court noted that the minor discrepancies in the testimony of mother-in-law could be considered to be normal and a result of her lack of proper comprehension. It agreed with the view of the Trial Court that such discrepancies in the testimony of a sixty-five year old who was deposing from her memory after one year of the incident cannot be grounds for rejection of the testimony altogether. The Apex Court noted that though the motive suggested by the prosecution is a difficult proportion, it cannot be ruled out. The Court held that the case cannot be brought under the exceptions laid down in Section 300 IPC and the conviction and sentence of the accused under S. 302 cannot be interfered with."Even if it be taken that there was a quarrel of the appellant with her mother-in-law (PW-1) in the morning of the date of incident because the appellant wanted to go the place of her father, it cannot be said that such a quarrel would make it a case of grave and sudden provocation. The circumstances as proved on record, and the manner of commission of crime, make it clear that the present case cannot be brought under any of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC; and conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be faulted"Case details Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu| Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2012 | LiveLaw 2023 (SC) 132 | 22nd February, 2023| Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. TrivediFor Appellant(s) Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Simran Singh,...

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence For Mother Who Killed Her 5-Year Old Child

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags