J.B. Koshy, J.: The first accused in S.C.No.28 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein.. Originally there were three accused in this case. A-1 is the sister of A-2. Their mother is P.W.2. A-3 is the wife of P.W.3 who is the paternal uncle of A-1. The case of the prosecution was that: First accused was working in Delhi. She fell in love with one Reghu and married him. Out of that relationship a son was born. The relationship between them became strained and for the last three and a half years she is residing with P.W.2. In the night of 26.8 1996 there was Tiruvonam programme in the Courtyard of a house at about 200 metres away from the house of P.W.2. P.W.2 along with A-2 left the house for attending the programme. At that time, A-1 was having advanced pregnancy and therefore, A-1 and her son did not go to attend the programme. P.W.2 and A-2 came back at 2 am in the early morning. They saw A-1 in unconscious condition and her eldest son was seen crying. They took A-1 to Menathottam Hospital at Rani. P.W.13, the Gynecologist of that hospital at about 5 a.m. on 27.8.1996 examined A-1 and issued Ex.P-13 certificate. A-1 came to the hospital after delivering a child. As the child was not seen with her, P.W.13 enquired her where the child was. She said that she put a cloth on the face of the baby and she kept the baby under a coconut tree near her house. A-1 also told that she delivered a child at 11 p.m. on 26.8.1996. Even though A-1 approached the hospital telling the story of abortion, on examination, P.W.13 found that A-1 delivered a baby and there was no abortion. Then only she disclosed about the delivery. On the basis of this, P.W.13 intimated the mater to the police and the dead body was exhumed.

2. P.W. 10, the Assistant Police Surgeon of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam conducted autopsy on the deadbody and issued Ex.P-9 postmortem certificate. In Ex.P-19 post-mortem certificate the following injuries were noted by P.W.10:

"(1) Pressure abrasion 16 cm long nearly horizontal completely encircling the neck below the legal of thyroid cartilage being 3.5 cm below the behind the chin (1.5 cm broad) 2.5 cm below right ear lobule (1.2 cm broad) 7 cm below occiput (1 cm broad) and 2.5 cm below left year lobule (1 cm broad). The subcutaneous tissue underneath the injury showed infiltration of blood at several sites. Deep seated contusions were noticed in the thyroid gland.

(2) Contusion of scalp 3 x 2 cm involving its whole thickness on the back of middle of head overlying the occiput. Brain was found to be intact."

P.W. 10 opined that the death was due to ligature strangulation and nonligation of the umbilical cord. The doctor also opined that the baby was full term and was live born.

3. A-2 and A-3 were charged only for offences punishable under Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence against them and they were acquitted. The first accused was found guilty under Secs. 302 and 318, Indian Penal Code. The first accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Sec. 318, Indian Penal Code. Against the order of conviction and sentence, first accused filed this appeal. She had already undergone imprisonment for more than three years.

4. The defence statement under Sec. 313 was that she delivered a child, there was nobody to attend her and she became unconscious, she was taken to the hospital by her brother and she was totally ignorant about the death of her child as she was unconscious. Deposition of P.W.1 also shows that A-1 was unconscious when they returned after attending Thiruvonam programme. There was no eye witness in this case and A-1 was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The main point of circumstantial evidence was the extra judicial confession made b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document