Back
Rose Mary Gets for Strangling Newborn Son in by Thodupuzha Court
A Kerala court has sentenced a 46-year-old woman to for strangling her newborn son to death shortly after a secret delivery in , rejecting her denial of motherhood and dismissing arguments of .
A Secret Birth and a Fatal Discovery
The , presided over by Judge Smt. Ash K. Bal, convicted Rose Mary @ Kuttiyakka of Marayoor in Idukki for under . The court also imposed a fine of ₹50,000, with an additional one-year in default.
The prosecution case, built on , revealed that on , a 16-year-old boy spotted a newborn wrapped in a bedsheet and placed on a plastic cover near a cattle shed adjoining Rose Mary’s house. The infant was alive when found and rushed to the . Doctors noted severe injuries and referred him to higher centers, but he succumbed to his injuries later that day at .
Medical and DNA Evidence Seals the Case
Rose Mary initially denied knowing the child, but medical examinations the same day revealed clear signs of recent childbirth. The gynecologist from , confirmed she was in a postpartum state. Crucially, DNA analysis from the established that Rose Mary was the biological mother of the deceased child.
The post-mortem examination proved decisive. The doctor found that the infant was born alive and died from a blunt-force injury to the neck—an injury impossible in a normal vaginal delivery or from a fall. This ruled out any accidental cause and pointed directly to strangulation.
Court Rejects Claim
During sentencing, the convict sought pardon, citing her 85-year-old mother who lives alone. Her counsel argued that she might have suffered from , but the court noted that no medical evidence was produced to support this. The treating gynecologist had testified that Rose Mary showed no symptoms of depression during her week-long hospital stay. Judge Bal observed that Rose Mary gave coherent answers during proceedings, and no such mental health contention was raised during the trial.
Legal Analysis: Circumstantial Chain Complete
The court applied the principle from Sharad Birdhichand vs State of Maharashtra (1984) that must form a complete chain excluding all hypotheses except guilt. Here, the evidence—secret delivery, presence of the child on her property, her bloody clothing, medical proof of childbirth, DNA match, and the fatal neck injury—met that standard. The court also invoked , holding that Rose Mary, being the mother, bore the the child’s death, which she failed to do.
Judge Bal further distinguished the offence as under , not , since the act was done with and .
A Sentence Tempered with Mercy
While imposing the for , the court acknowledged the tragic circumstances. Citing the High Court’s decision in State of Kerala vs Salini (2010) and , it directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the government for consideration of —a provision specifically designed for women convicted of . The court noted that the convict, abandoned by her husband for eight years, may have acted out of societal fear, yet the act remained “.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “Here in the case, the material evidence and circumstances bring out by the prosecution points towards the guilt of the accused only and are sufficient to establish the case of prosecution.”
- “In the said circumstance, when the child was born, she might have done the act due to the fear of the society. Even then the act done by the accused is nothing but .”
- “The doctor who conducted the postmortem found that the baby had been born alive and died due to a blunt-force injury to his neck. The doctor ruled out the possibility that the injury could have occurred during a normal delivery or from a fall.”
The case, investigated by inspectors A.R. Shanikhan and Sam Jose, saw 19 prosecution witnesses and 22 exhibits. Public Prosecutor appeared for the State, while Advocate represented the accused.
