Kerala High Court acquits woman accused of murdering her children

In a significant verdict, the Kerala High Court has acquitted an accused woman murder her two children by throwing them into the Moolampilly River, citing a lack of solid evidence and motive.

The bench comprising Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice C Pratheep Kumar set aside the conviction and life imprisonment earlier passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur. The prosecution's case was based primarily on the argument that a trivial domestic dispute over the purchase of ice cream could not justify such a heinous act. The court remarked: “We cannot believe even for a moment that a mother would throw her own children into the river and murder them for such a stupid reason.”

Case background:

• The woman and her two children went missing on December 4, 2015. She was found alive in the river while her children, aged seven and four, drowned. Their bodies were recovered two days later.
• Initially, the police registered a case suggesting that the woman had jumped into the river with her children, which led to murder charges after a lengthy investigation.

The trial court had convicted the woman under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code relying mainly on the last seen theory and alleged that the accused had failed to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of her children. However, the Supreme Court found this insufficient, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain that clearly points to guilt, and excluded all other possibilities.

The court underlined important principles of circumstantial evidence, including the need to establish facts that are solely consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. In this case, the lack of direct evidence and the significant amount of time between the last sightings of the children and the discovery of their bodies cast doubt on the woman's guilt.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof, resulting in the defendant's acquittal. The court reversed the earlier ruling and emphasized the need for conclusive evidence in criminal cases.

Read more: