Essential Ingredients To Attract 'Murder' Not Made Out: Kerala HC Alters Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing Partner's 4 Year Old Daughter

The Kerala High Court has altered the conviction of man accused of causing the death of his partner's 4-year-old daughter in 2013.

The Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar VM found that there was no intent to murder the child.

Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. "We note that the evidence put forth by the prosecution places the act of A1 (the main accused) as one that falls within the second part of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC, i.e., an act done with the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death," the Court stated.

The case dates back to October 2013, when the body of the 4-year-old girl, the daughter of the accused's partner, was discovered in a six-foot-deep pit. The prosecution alleged that Rajith, the main accused, conspired with the child’s mother and another accomplice, Basil, to kill the child. The motive suggested was that the child was seen as an "obstacle" to the couple’s relationship.

In 2018, the trial court convicted Rajith of murder and sentenced him to death. The child’s mother and the third accused, Basil, were handed life sentences. The High Court heard their appeals against the verdict.

While the trial court based its decision on circumstantial evidence, particularly the ‘last seen’ theory and the recovery of the child’s body based on the accused’s disclosure statements, the High Court scrutinized these elements closely. It found several gaps in the prosecution's motive, noting that the child’s mother could have sent her daughter to live with her grandparents, as her other child was already living with them. This weakened the prosecution's claim that the child was an impediment to the couple’s plans.

"If A2 (the child’s mother) had perceived X (the child) as an obstacle to their relationship, all she needed to do was to hand over X to her parents, thus avoiding the need to take care of her," the Court observed.

Despite these discrepancies, the Court affirmed that the child had suffered a homicidal death, based on the medical evidence. However, it found insufficient evidence to attribute murder or the intent to kill. Instead, it concluded that the accused had conspired to cause bodily harm to the child, leading to her death. "..prosecution has established the circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn have been conjointly and firmly established by the evidence tendered by the prosecution. The evidence put forth does unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused/appellants. Cumulatively taken, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution against the appellants form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the appellants by illegally conspiring together and each working in furtherance of the common object," the Court said.

"The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had conspired and committed offenses amounting to culpable homicide with the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death. They also conspired to hide the body of X, making them liable under Section 304, Part I, read with Section 120B IPC," the Court held.

Conclusively, the Court sentenced Rajith to life imprisonment and confirmed the life sentences of the child’s mother and Basil. The Court also acquitted Rajith and the child’s mother of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

"....They have also conspired and caused the disappearance of evidence of offence by hiding the dead body of X. Appellants are hence liable to be convicted under Section 304, Part I read with Section 120B IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of A1, A2, and A3 by the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, are hereby set aside. A1, A2 and A3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each u/s.304, Part I r/w 120B of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, A1, A2 and A3 shall undergo imprisonment for another period of one year. A1, A2 and A3 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) u/s 201 r/w 120B of IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount, A1, A2 and A3 shall undergo imprisonment for another period of six months. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. As we have sustained the conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s.304 r/w.120B IPC, we do not deem it necessary to separately sustain the conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s.120B IPC. The separate conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s. 120B IPC is therefore set aside. Set-off is allowed," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Rani v. The State of Kerala [Neutral Citation No. 2024:KER:69873]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Babu S Nair, C Anil Kumar, and KV Sabu

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi S

Click here to read/download the Judgment