IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction of a mother for murdering her three children, emphasizing the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.)

The appellant/accused who was mother of the three children was convicted for murdering her own children. The appeal is filed against the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2014 around 1:00 p.m., complaint was filed by PW.1 who is the VRO of Ghangadharpally. In the complaint it was mentioned stated that the appellant had killed her three children, which was informed by the appellant. When enquired with PW.2 (mother-in-law of appellant) regarding the incident, she stated that on the previous day i.e. on 29.09.2014, PW.2 warned and admonished the appellant for beating her four year old son. On the said night, she slept in her house with the children, since the husband of the appellant had gone to Hyderabad for begging and he did not return. The next day when PW.2 and her other son went to collect mango leaves, meanwhile it was informed to them that the appellant was running towards the pond. They rushed towards the pond and found that the appellant was in the middle of the pond and when she was asked to come out, she did not heed to their shouting as such PW.2 and others went inside the pond and brought appellant out with help of some people who entered into the pond and brought back the appellant out of the pond. On enquiry, the appellant revealed that she had killed all her children and the bodies were in the house. Immediately, on hearing what the appellant said, all of them went to the house and found the three children dead. Thereafter, it was informed to PW.1 who in turn lodged the complaint.

3. On the basis of the complaint filed, scene of offence ‘panchanama’ was conducted near the house and thereafter inquest was also conducted. The dead bodies of the three children were sent for post-mortem examination. According to the Postmortem, the three children were killed by strangulation. Having concluded investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

4. The learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under the said offences, examined PWs.1 to 12 on behalf the prosecution. PWs.2 and 3 supported the case of the prosecution regarding the appellant being present in the house along with her three children on the night i.e. previous day of the appellant trying to commit suicide. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge believing the version of PWs.2 and 3 and other circumstances, convicted the appellant.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even according to the prosecution case, the appellant was a beggar and also her husband. They used to go to Hyderabad for the purpose of begging and at times they could not return to the village. In fact, whenever, she goes to Hyderabad, the children were under the care and custody of PW.2. In fact, even in the complaint given by PW.1, it is stated that she wanted to take her life for the reason of the children not being alive. It is not mentioned in the complaint that appellant had committed the murder of three children, but, stated that since the children were not alive, she intended to commit suicide.

6. Counsel further argued that the circumstances made out by the prosecution are not sufficient to point towards the guilt of the appellant. It was not proved that when the children died, the appellant was in the house. In the said circumstances, on the basis of suspicion, conviction cannot be recorded.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the complaint filed at the earliest point of time vide Ex.P1 the sequence was clearly narrated. PW.2 had admonished the appellant for beating her children on 29.09.2014. On the next day i.e. on 30.09.2014, appellant tried to commit suicide and PW.2 and others brought her out of the pond. Then the appellant had informed about the death of her three children. When the children were under the care and custody of the appellan