LexMANJU versus STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 151 MANJU v. STATE OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2013) DECEMBER 17, 2019 [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Prosecution under – For killing new-born baby girl by strangulating her – Courts below convicted the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Conviction cannot be based solely on circumstantial evidence, unless chain of circumstances is established – The facts of the case show that there was possibility of natural death of the child – The evidence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence acquitted. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. To base conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence, unless chain of circumstances is established conviction cannot be recorded. From the totality of evidence on record, it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with an oxygen mask and she had also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after birth. There was a possibility of natural death. Though the doctor had opined in the post-mortem report that the cause of death was asphyxia, but in absence of any clear evidence on record, it is not safe to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt for acquittal from the charge framed against her. [Para 10][155-F-H; 156-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2013. [2019] 15 S.C.R. 151 151 A B C D E F G H 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2010 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. No. 168 of 2010. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shiva Vijay Kumar, Neeleshwar, Mrs. Rama, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. for the Appellant. Anmol Chandan, Pranay Ranjan, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th March 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, by which the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. 2. The appellant herein was admitted in the maternity ward of the Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital and delivered a baby girl around 12:30 in the afternoon on 24th August 2007. It is the case of the prosecution that as the new born was a baby girl, as such the appellant-mother has caused her death by strangulation after baby was handed over to her at 04:30 p.m. on the said date. On 26th August 2007 post-mortem was conducted on the dead body and the doctor opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. On 31st August 2007 a case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, for causing death of her new born baby. She was tried for the charge under Section 302 IPC by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, New Delhi. In her statement, she has not pleaded guilty and claimed trial, as such, she was tried in Sessions Case No.78 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. To prove the charge against the appellant, prosecution in all, has examined 23 witnesses. The evidence against the accused was put to her and her statement was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. she has pleaded her innocence and deposed that she has been falsely implicated by the police in connivance with the hospital authorities, to shift the blame from doctors on duty. 3. The trial court, by judgment dated 19.12.2009, by recording a finding that prosecution has been able to prove complete chain of circumstances and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, has held A B C D E F G H 153 the appellant-accused is guilty for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and by order dated 22.12.2009 imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. 4. As against the conviction recorded and sentence imposed the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 5. We have heard Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anmol Chandan, learned counsel appearing for the Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.