Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeal filed by Manju, the appellant, against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had confirmed her conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her newborn daughter. The case arose from an incident on 24 August 2007 at Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital, where the appellant delivered a baby girl. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangled the baby because it was a female child. The baby was placed in an incubator with an oxygen mask after birth and was handed over to the mother at around 4:30 PM. The baby was found dead at around 6:30 PM. The post-mortem report indicated death due to asphyxia from strangulation. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the testimony of two staff nurses (PW-8 and PW-9) who stated that the baby was with the mother and later found dead. The High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The husband (PW-7) testified that the family wanted a female child and that the baby had not opened its eyes or cried after birth. The court noted that the baby was kept in an incubator with an oxygen mask, indicating possible health issues. The motive attributed by the lower courts—that the appellant killed the baby because it was female—was not supported by evidence. The court also observed that the appellant was under the influence of drugs and was sleepy. The Supreme Court held that it is unnatural for a mother to kill her own baby and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant, giving her the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for murder of her newborn daughter based on circumstantial evidence, but the Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances was not complete and motive was not established, as the family desired a female child and the baby was kept in an incubator with oxygen mask and showed no signs of life. The court acquitted the appellant giving benefit of doubt (Paras 9-11). B) Criminal Law - Motive - Unnatural for mother to kill newborn - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The trial court and High Court attributed motive that the appellant killed the baby because it was a female child, but the Supreme Court found no evidence to support this, noting that the family already had a male child and wanted a female child, and the appellant was under the influence of drugs. The court held that it is totally unnatural for a mother to kill her own baby by strangulation (Paras 9-10). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal when evidence insufficient - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record was not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt, leading to acquittal (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of circumstances is incomplete and motive is not established.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and High Court, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant, who was on bail, had her bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances must be complete
- benefit of doubt
- motive not established
- unnatural for mother to kill newborn
