The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime, the criminal conspiracy, and the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of considering all available evidence and extending the benefit of doubt to the accused when evidence allows for two different views.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by appellants Jose @ Joseph (1st accused 'A1') and Mersey @ Mariya (2nd accused 'A2') who are husband and wife, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Ernakulam by which A1 was found guilty for offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and A2 was found guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC and also for Section 201 read with 120B of IPC and was sentenced to suffer as under: A1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for offence under Section 302 of IPC. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for offence under Section 201 of IPC. A2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC. She was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) with a default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B of IPC.

2. Prosecution has the following case against the appellants: A1 and A2 are husband and wife and six children were born out of the wedlock. On 23/01/2008, A2 delivered another girl child which was the seventh one. Since it was a girl child, the accused/appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the child. On the same day, at 09.00 p.m., A1 tightened a cloth around the neck of the new born baby and killed her at their house namely, Sharon Villa, Thomaspuram Road, Maradu Village. Thereafter, in order to cause disappearance of evidence, accused buried the corpse of child by digging a pit in their courtyard on the northern side of the eastern bedroom. Thereafter, on 27/01/2008, since foul smell began to spread out because of decomposition of the body, A1 dug out the body from the pit, put it in a plastic bag and abandoned it in the bush at Thykoodam church road.

3. Originally, the case was registered on 27/01/2008 by Sub Inspector of Police, Panangadu Police Station under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for unnatural death, based on Ext. P1 First Information Statement given by PW1 Anilkumar. Later, on detailed investigation, the offence is allegedly revealed to be one under Section 302 read with 120B of IPC.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, prosecution examined PW1 to PW19, marked Exts. P1 to P21 and identified material objects MO1 to MO5. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Both of them denied all allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. Written statement was filed separately. According to accused, the child was dead at the time of delivery due to umbilical cord strangulation. Since the baby was born dead, the church authorities would not permit to cremate in the graveyard for want of baptism. Hence, on the very same night, A1 took the dead body in a plastic bag, took it to the graveyard of the church, made a small pit by using a wooden log and buried the corpse. Since the pit was not so deep, the body might have come outside and stray dogs might have bitten and carried the same to the open space. No evidence was adduced by defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. John Sebastian Ralph, argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants had committed any offence alleged by the prosecution. There is absolutely no evidence to show that appellants entered into criminal conspiracy to commit murder of their new born baby. There is no evidence to show