IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Plea of alibi requires corroborative evidence.
(2) Appeal by Special Leave – Supreme Court cannot re-appreciate evidence for the purpose of examining whether finding of fact concurrently arrived at by Trial Court and High Court are correct or not.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2010, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Madras has dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2009, as passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2008, holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ [‘IPC’ for short] and awarding her the punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulations.

2. In a brief outline, it could be noticed that in this case, the appellant has been convicted of the offence of murder of her five-year-old child in the house of her mother-in-law at Perambalur in the morning of 21.06.2007. According to the prosecution case, the appellant’s husband was living abroad for earning livelihood and the appellant was mostly living with her father at Kolakkudi. However, on being forced to live with her mother-in-law for the purpose of upbringing and education of the child, she found the child to be an obstacle in her desire to live separate and hence, strangulated the child to death when her mother-in-law had gone out of the house. It was alleged that the appellant was last seen with the child and after having killed the child, when her mother-in-law and other witnesses reached the scene of crime, she ran away and was apprehended in the late afternoon at Perambalur New Bus Stand. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death of the child was asphyxia because of strangulation. In the trial, all but one prosecution witnesses supported the accusations against the appellant. Only the father of the appellant deposed to the contrary and asserted that at the relevant point of time, the appellant was with him at Kolakkudi and he accompanied her to Perambalur after receiving information about death of the child. After appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, in its judgment dated 15.10.2009, rejected the plea of alibi taken on behalf of the accused-appellant and held proved that the victim child died of asphyxia because of strangulation and was last seen alive with the appellant, who failed to explain the circumstances in which the child died. Hence, the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced accordingly. In appeal, the High Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court while holding that the ingredients establishing culpability of the appellant were clearly established on record.

2.1. In this appeal, the concurrent findings of the two Courts have been questioned essentially with reference to certain discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witnesses and on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish a chain of cogent circumstances which could lead to the only hypothesis that the appellant had killed her own child. These submissions have been countered with reference to the evidence of the prosecution and findings of the two Courts.

3. Having regard to the submissions made and the questions arising for determination, we may take note of the relevant factual and background aspects as follows:

3.1. In this case, the First Information Report² [‘FIR’ for short] bearing No. 328 of 2007 was registered at Perambalur Police Station at around 9.00 a.m. on 21.06.2007 on the information furnished by PW-1 Basheera, mother-in-law of the appellant, about killing of the victim child by her own mother, that is, the appellant. The relevant contents of the FIR, said to have been scribed by PW-10 Subbulakshmi, SI, Perambalur, read as under:³ [The extractions in this judgment are from the translated copies placed on record]

“........As my grand daughter is 5 years old, my son had spoken from Riyat to Kolakkudi and said that she has to go to Perambalur and stay in my house and educate the child. Hence, Vahida was brought by her father on