Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Murder Case: Vahitha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (22 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2023
Citation: Not Available in the provided text.
Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a mother be convicted for the murder of her own child based on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a mother was accused of strangulating her five-year-old daughter. The court examined the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to determine if the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment highlights the complexities of circumstantial evidence and the importance of establishing a clear chain of events.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of a five-year-old girl, Farhana, who was found dead in her grandmother’s house in Perambalur on the morning of June 21, 2007. The child’s mother, Vahitha (the appellant), was accused of strangling her daughter. Vahitha’s husband was working abroad, and she primarily lived with her parents in Kolakkudi. She was reportedly forced to stay with her mother-in-law in Perambalur for the child’s education. The prosecution argued that Vahitha saw her child as an obstacle to her desire for a separate life and killed her when her mother-in-law was away.

The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by Vahitha’s mother-in-law, Basheera, who stated that she found Vahitha strangling the child with a saree. Vahitha allegedly fled the scene but was apprehended later that day at the Perambalur New Bus Stand. The post-mortem report confirmed that the child died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after examining fourteen witnesses, convicted Vahitha under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The court rejected Vahitha’s plea of alibi, noting that she was the last person seen with the child. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the Trial Court’s decision, concurring that the evidence established Vahitha’s culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court emphasized that Vahitha was the only person with the child at the time of the incident and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the child’s death.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. It states:

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The prosecution argued that Vahitha’s actions met the criteria for murder under this section. The court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof, especially in cases where there are no direct eyewitnesses.

Arguments

The appellant, Vahitha, argued that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, including inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. She also claimed that she had an alibi, stating that she was not present at the scene of the crime. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of circumstances that could lead to the conclusion that she had committed the murder.

The respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu, countered that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They argued that minor discrepancies in witness statements are common and should not invalidate the entire case. The prosecution emphasized that Vahitha was the last person seen with the child and that she failed to provide any explanation for the child’s death, which they argued was a critical point under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the defense’s attempt to highlight minor inconsistencies in witness statements and to use the testimony of a hostile witness to support an alibi plea. The prosecution innovatively used Section 106 of the Evidence Act to argue that because the child was last seen with the mother, the mother should explain the death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the murder of her daughter.
2. Whether the discrepancies in the witness statements were significant enough to discredit the prosecution’s case.
3. Whether the appellant’s plea of alibi was valid.
4. Whether the appellant was required to provide an explanation for the child’s death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision:

Judgment

Authorities:

• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343]: The Court followed the principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in this case.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: The Court used this case to evaluate the circumstantial evidence and determine if the benefit of doubt could be given to the accused.
• Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646]: The Court used this case to distinguish between serious contradictions and minor variations in witness statements.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that minor discrepancies in evidence should not be given undue importance.
• Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar [(2002) 6 SCC 81]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that normal discrepancies are expected in evidence and should not discredit the prosecution’s case.
• Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [(1999) 9 SCC 525]: The Court cited this case to support the view that minor contradictions are common and do not invalidate the prosecution’s case.
• Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2012) 4 SCC 257]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that while the accused has the right to remain silent, the court can draw adverse inferences from their silence.
• Satpal v. State of Haryana [(2018) 6 SCC 610]: The Court relied on this case to explain that when the accused is last seen with the deceased, they are obligated to provide an explanation for the circumstances of the death.
• State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254]: The Court cited this case to support its view that if the accused does not offer an explanation under Section 106, they can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
• State of Haryana v. Bhagirath [(1999) 5 SCC 96]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that reasonable doubt should not be a trivial or merely possible doubt.
• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa [(2002) 8 SCC 381]: The Court cited this case to support its view that it is impossible to prove all elements in a criminal trial with scientific precision and that normal discrepancies are expected.
• Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy [(2013) 15 SCC 298]: The Court relied on this case to explain that the evidence of related witnesses should be carefully scrutinized but not discarded merely because of the relationship.
• State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752]: The Court cited this case to define an “interested” witness as one who derives some benefit from the litigation, emphasizing that natural witnesses are not necessarily interested witnesses.
• Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022) 10 SCC 321]: The Court used this case to clarify the subtle distinction between a regular appeal and an appeal by special leave.
• Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2022) 8 SCC 253]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that the power under Article 136 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice.
• Satye Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand [(2022) 5 SCC 438]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove the guilt of the accused.
• Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha [2022 SCC OnLine SC 673]: The Court relied on this case to support its view that if the accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response that is not true, such a response becomes an additional link in the chain of events.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors: the consistent testimonies of independent witnesses placing the appellant at the scene of the crime, the medical evidence confirming death by strangulation, and the appellant’s failure to provide any explanation for the child’s death. The Court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is unavailable. The Court also highlighted the significance of the last seen theory and the obligations it imposes on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual aspects included the presence of the appellant at the scene, the medical evidence, and the lack of a credible alibi. The legal considerations included the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the principles of circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof.

The court considered an alternative interpretation that the case might be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, given the quarrel between the appellant and her mother-in-law. However, the court rejected this, stating that the circumstances did not fall under any of the exceptions to murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also rejected the argument that the prosecution had failed to prove a motive, stating that motive is not essential for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

The court’s decision was based on the principle that when the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the accused fails to provide any explanation, a conviction can be sustained. The court emphasized that the appellant was the last person seen with the child and that she had a legal obligation to explain the circumstances of the child’s death.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In the case before us also, the accused who had been leading an independent luxurious life with the money more than sufficient, not willing to live with P.W.1 for the sake of the education of her child, and without considering that the child was born to her with an intention to cause death to the child, and also knowing full well that the act being committed by her would cause death to the child on 21.6.2007 at 8.00 A.M. in the house of P.W.1, when P.W.1 was not available at house, she had twisted outer end of her saree and strangled around the neck of her daughter 6 years old Farhana, who was sleeping and the thyroid cartilage bone was fractured and thus caused the death.”
• “Even then, the only point that arises for consideration at this juncture is that when the child was left in the custody of the mother/appellant by P.W.1 at the time of occurrence, when P.W.1 came back, she found only the dead body of the child. At the time of occurrence, the appellant alone was available along with the child. Hence, it is for the accused to explain as to how the death was occurred. In the instant case, the prosecution proved that the child died of asphyxia due to strangulation. If to be so, it is for the mother/appellant to explain as to how the death was caused.”
• “It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is upon the court. One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of CrPC is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. Both judges concurred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that leads to no other reasonable conclusion than the guilt of the accused. It also highlights the significance of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of explanation on the accused when facts are especially within their knowledge. This case may have implications for future cases involving circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory.

There were no new doctrines or legal principles introduced in this judgment. The court applied existing principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The court’s acceptance ofminor discrepancies in witness statements and its emphasis on the accused’s obligation to explain the circumstances of the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act are significant. This judgment reinforces the importance of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Vahitha for the murder of her five-year-old daughter, Farhana. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstances that pointed to Vahitha’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court rejected Vahitha’s plea of alibi and emphasized her failure to provide any explanation for the child’s death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The judgment reinforces the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials and the obligations imposed on the accused when facts are especially within their knowledge.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities of criminal law and the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring justice. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that even in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, a conviction can be sustained based on a robust chain of circumstantial evidence.