Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Subramanian Namboothiri on 30 October, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:81529
Crl. Appeal No.696 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 696 OF 2018
CRIME NO.264/2013 OF Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2016 IN SC NO.692 OF 2013 OF SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
- I, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV.NEEMA T V
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI
S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,THATTAKKATT ILLAM, THIRUVAMBADI.
2 RAMLA BEGUM DEVIKA ANTHARJANAM
W/O. SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI,THATTAKKATT ILLAM, THIRUVAMBADI.
BY ADV SHRI.P.VENUGOPAL
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2025, THE
COURT ON 29.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION: THE
COURT ON 30.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE:
2025:KER:81529
Crl. Appeal No.696 of 2018 2
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
Impugning the judgment of the learned Special Judge for the Trial of
Offences against Children (Additional Sessions Judge-I), Kozhikode, the State of
Kerala preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Brief facts :-
2. In this matter, the prosecution depicts a true picture of a heinous,
barbarous and demonic torture by the father and stepmother on their little children.
3. One Subramanian Namboodiri (the 1st respondent herein) is a resident
of Calicut, Kerala. His first marriage was solemnized with Sreeja Antharjanam. In
that wedlock, two children were born, namely; Arun S. Namboodiri (PW1) and
Adhithi S. Namboodiri (victim/ deceased). Later, Sreeja Antharjanam died in a
road traffic accident.
4. Subsequently, the said Subramanian Namboodiri was married to the
2nd accused (Ramla Begum @ Devaki Antharjanam) in the year 2011.
5. The prosecution narrative is that, after the second marriage of the 1st
accused (Subramanian Namboodiri) with Ramla Begum @ Devaki Antharjanam
2025:KER:81529
(2nd accused), they started to torture PW1 (Arun S. Namboodiri) and the
victim/deceased (Adhithi S. Namboodiri) for a prolonged period. Ultimately, the
continuous ill treatment, cruelty and torture, both physical and mental, has led to
the death of Adhithi S. Namboodiri.
The prosecution case
6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, the accused/respondents were
residing in a house named 'Lakshmi' bearing door No.1/4283 of Kozhikode
Corporation. While so, between 26.06.2012 and 29.04.2013, in furtherance of
their common intention to cause the death of PW1 and the deceased, the children
of the first accused born in his first wedlock, the accused subjected them to cruelty
by beating them with hands and sticks, kicking them, not providing them with
adequate food, compelling them to perform tiresome tasks, pouring boiled water
on the private parts of Adhithi S. Namboodiri, and refusing to provide medical
treatment to the deceased. The prosecution further alleges that at the time of the
incident, PW1, the son was aged 10 years and the victim girl was aged 5½ years
and was a student of Class I. The prosecution further alleges that due to the
inhuman treatment of the accused, the girl succumbed to injuries on 29.04.2013.
The registration of FIR and investigation
7. On 30.04.2013, PW2 (Sreejith E.), the uncle of the deceased lodged
Ext.P1 FIS before the Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode. On the basis of
2025:KER:81529
Ext.P1 FIS, PW28 (Ramanan K.N.), the Sub Inspector of Police registered Ext.P24
FIR. On that day itself, PW29 (Santhosh P.K.), the Circle Inspector of Police, took
up the investigation. He arrested the accused after preparing Ext.P25 arrest memo
and thereafter, he recorded the confession statement of the 1st accused. On the
basis of the disclosure statement of the 1st accused, and as led by him, PW29
recovered the wooden reaper (MO1) from the kitchen of his rented house.
8. On 02.05.2013, the Investigating Officer visited the place of
occurrence and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. He also seized the car used for
taking the child to the hospital, as per Ext.P8 mahazar. He caused the scene of
occurrence to be examined by PW17 (Mini D.), Scientific Assistant and collected
samples of blood.
9. The Investigating Officer has also seized Ext.P7 rent agreement and
Ext.P19 ownership certificate. During the investigation, he recorded 164 statement
of PW1, Arun S. Namboodiri. He questioned all the material witnesses, recorded
their statements, completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode. The learned Magistrate, after
completing the initial steps, committed the case to the Court of Session,
Kozhikode. The Sessions Court made over the case to the Court of Special Judge
for the Trial of Offences against Children (Additional Sessions Judge-I),
Kozhikode for trial and disposal.
2025:KER:81529
The proceedings before the trial court
10. The respondents/accused entered appearance before the Additional
Sessions Court-I, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the
learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, has framed charge under
Sections 323, 324, 307, 302 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 23 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for the sake of brevity, 'the JJ
Act'). The charge was read over and explained to the accused and they pleaded
not guilty. They maintained their plea of innocence.
11. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 29 were examined and Exts.P1 to P38
were exhibited and marked. MOs.1 to 3 were also identified and marked. After
the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section
313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the
incriminating circumstances. No defence evidence was adduced. Exts.D1 and
D1(a) Case diary contradictions were marked on the side of the defence.
The findings of the learned Sessions Judge
12. After a full fledged trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused
guilty under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and also under
Section 23 of the JJ Act.
13. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the 1st accused to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under
2025:KER:81529
Section 324 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable
under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months for the
offence punishable under Section 23 of the JJ Act and also directed the 1st accused
to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to PW1 under Section 357(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
14. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the 2nd accused
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC,
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323
IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under
Section 23 of the JJ Act.
15. The learned Sessions Judge allowed set off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C. It was further directed that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
16. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 r/w 34 IPC.
17. Impugning the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the State of
Kerala preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor
18. Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is legally unsustainable. The
2025:KER:81529
trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct
perspective, while acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 307 and 302 IPC. The judgment of the trial court is vitiated by manifest
illegality.
19. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW1 (Arun S. Namboodiri)
coupled with the evidence of PW27 (Dr.Prajith T.M.) who conducted the autopsy
and issued Ext.P22 post-mortem certificate would clearly prove that accused Nos.1
and 2 have committed the gruesome murder of the younger child (Adhithi S.
Namboodiri). PW27 has noted as many as 19 ante-mortem injuries on the body of
the victim. Dr.Prajith opined that Adhithi S. Namboodiri died of neurogenic shock
on account of severe trauma.
20. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused had no
intention to cause the death of their minor child is patently wrong, erroneous and
perverse.
21. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial court
erred in discarding the evidence of the neighbours and relatives, which clearly
established that the victim had been subjected to untold miseries and cruelties.
22. The trial court has arrived at its conclusion on the basis of surmises
and conjectures, and by non-reading and misreading of the admissible evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The trial court ought to have found that the accused
2025:KER:81529
had a strong motive to commit the murder of the victim girl.
23. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the chain of
circumstantial evidence is fully established which would lead only to one
hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused. Reliance was placed on the decisions in
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra1 and Gjanan Dasharath
Kharate v. State of Maharashtra2.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused
24. Sri. P. Venugopal, the learned counsel for respondents would submit
that the trial court has arrived at a proper conclusion after a detailed evaluation of
the evidence on record. The accused had no intention to cause the death of the
victim girl. The first respondent is the father of the victim, and the second
respondent is her stepmother. They are stated to have inflicted only minor corporal
punishment on the children, with the intention of instilling discipline in their lives.
25. The scope of interference by this Court in a case of acquittal is limited
and is to be exercised with extreme care, caution, and circumspection. In the
present case, there is no manifest or glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of
justice warranting interference by this Court with the verdict of acquittal passed by
the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307
read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2006 KHC 1469
AIR 2016 SC 1255
2025:KER:81529
The evidence let in by the prosecution
26. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 29 and Exts.P1 to P38 were
exhibited and marked.
27. PW1 (Arun S. Namboodiri) is one of the victims in this case. He
testified that now he is residing along with his paternal uncle. During the relevant
period, he resided along with the accused and his deceased sister Adhithi. The 1st
accused is his father and the 2nd accused is his stepmother. He stated that on
29.04.2013, his father beat his younger sister (Adhithi) stating that she had
defecated in her skirt. The incident occurred on a holiday. His father beat her with
his hands and also with MO1, a wooden reaper, on her legs. She cried aloud. He
witnessed the incident from the passage of their house and, on seeing it, he also
began to cry. Thereafter, his father went out, and Adhithi went to her room and laid
down.
28. PW1 further stated that after the incident, he went out to play. When
his stepmother called him back, he returned to the house. At that time, his
stepmother asked him to hold his sister's legs, and together they shifted Adhithi to
another room near the well. He then went out again. His father, the first accused,
returned at about 8 p.m. and went out to shift house to another place, namely
Kunduparambu. His father came back at about 10 p.m., and the family was about
to have their dinner. On that day, his sister did not come for dinner. The 2nd
accused called her 'Arche... Arche...'. The girl did not respond. The accused
2025:KER:81529
rushed to the room of Adhithi. The 2nd accused applied some massage on her hands
and said something. In the meantime, the accused took Adhithi to hospital. He
further stated that, on the next day, his paternal uncle came to their house and
informed him that Adhithi is no more. He took him to his house at Thiruvambady.
29. PW1 (Arun S. Namboodiri) further deposed that the daughter and
brother of his stepmother used to come to their house occasionally. He would add
that initially, the accused had affection towards them. But, later they used to beat
them and compelled them to do the household chores.
30. He further asserted that, if they failed to wake up at 4 a.m., the
accused used to beat them. One day, when he came back from the temple after
darshan, Adhithi was crying. On enquiry, she told that the 2nd accused persuaded
her to drink hot barley water and she suffered burns in her mouth. Another day,
Adhithi told him that the stepmother has poured hot water on her genital organ,
thigh and anal area.
31. PW1 (Arun S. Namboodiri) further stated that during 2013, she did
not go to school for about two months immediately preceding the summer
vacation, as there were scars on her body due to the burns inflicted by the accused.
He also gave evidence to the tune that when he came back after attending school,
stepmother told him that she broke the hands of Adhithi. The teachers in their
school asked him why Adhithi is not attending school, then he replied that she is
going to study 'vedas', as instructed by the stepmother. He asserted that both the
2025:KER:81529
accused used to beat him using a wooden reaper and due to the forceful hit, often
blood oozed out. He has not divulged it to anyone due to the fear of his
stepmother.
32. PW1 would further say that sarees are tied around their compound
wall in order to maintain secrecy. The accused never permitted anybody to come
into their compound. There were three dogs in their house, and those dogs were
left unleashed to prevent the entry of others into their house. He added that his
stepmother disliked the visit of his relatives to their house. On one occasion, when
the paternal grandmother of the children contacted the stepmother expressing her
desire to visit the house, the stepmother dissuaded her by falsely stating that the
children were not available in the house.
33. PW1 further stated that he has not seen any intake of food by Adhithi
for the last two-three days, immediately prior to her death. The parents subjected
them to starvation. Adhithi was given only barley water. He added that his sister
could not sit due to her burn injuries. He identified MO1 reaper which was used
for beating them.
34. On being cross examined, he would say that he has not seen his father
after the incident. They resided at a place called Bilathikulam for about ten days.
There also, the parents used to cause hurt to them. He does not remember when
they visited Ootty.
2025:KER:81529
35. PW1 further stated that his stepmother used to teach him. During the
course of teaching she used to beat him with a cane. He would further say that the
stepmother taught him some manthras, poojas and rituals. He does not know
whether his sister was suffering from Epilepsy and also denied the suggestion that
the parents used to inflict blows only when they refused to study or to wake up
early.
36. PW2 (Sreejith E.) is the maternal uncle of PW1. He stated that his
sister (Sreeja) is the first wife of the 1st accused and she is no more. On
29.04.2013, he got information from PW8 (Govindan Namboodiri) that Adhithi
was admitted in Medical College, Kozhikode. He rushed to the hospital along with
his cousin Sandeep. When they reached there, Govindan Namboodiri told him that
Adhithi died. Next day, he lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the Nadakkavu Police.
37. PW3 (Ramesh Kurup) is a journalist by profession. He came to know
about the death of Adhithi on 29.04.2013. He is a neighbour of the accused at
Bilathikulam. When he was standing in the veranda of his house, he saw the 1st
accused taking the victim in a car. Once he has seen the 1st accused beating the
deceased telling that her uniform was damaged. He would further say that he used
to hear the cries of PW1 and the deceased. There was a discussion in the
Resident's Association that the accused used to torture their children, but he could
not visit the house of the accused as their house was always locked and the dogs
were kept unleashed.
2025:KER:81529
38. PW4 (K. Subhash) is another neighbour of the accused. He was the
Joint Secretary of Bilathikulam People Residence Association. He further stated
that there was a discussion in the said association regarding the ill-treatment and
torture of the children by the accused. The association entrusted PW7 (T.
Andikutty) with the responsibility of taking up the matter and discussing the issue
of torture.
39. PW4 further stated that the Childline workers had come to the house
of the accused to enquire into the allegations of torture of the children. However,
they were unable to enter the premises as they were prevented by the presence of
dogs. He has also witnessed the recovery of MO1 wooden reapers at the instance
of the 1st accused. He put his signature in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar and also
witnessed the seizure of mobile phones, sim cards, photographs, etc. by the police
as per Ext.P3 mahazar.
40. PW5 (T. P. Muralidharan) is an attestor to Ext.P4 Inquest report. PW6
(Anish T.) is another neighbour. He stated that he is residing in a house behind the
rented house of the accused. PW7 (T. Andikutty), father of PW6, leased out the
house to the accused. He asserted that the accused used to treat the children in a
cruel manner and had also seen the secret torture on several occasions. His father,
PW7, talked the matter to the 1st accused. Even thereafter, the torture continued.
He informed the matter to the Childline and the Childline came to the spot and
made some enquiry.
2025:KER:81529
41. PW6 further stated that on a day prior to Vishu, he heard the cries of
the kids. He proceeded to the house of the accused, but could not enter, as the dogs
prevented his entry.
42. PW7 (T. Andikutty) is the owner of the house wherein the accused
and their family resided on lease. Police seized the rent deed from him after
preparing Ext.P7 seizure mahazar. PW7 asserted that he used to hear cries of the
children from the house of the accused. The accused used to obstruct the visibility
to their house by using bed sheets. Even though he attempted to enquire into the
matter, he was unable to enter the house of the accused as the dogs prevented his
entry.
43. PW8 (Govindan Namboodiri) is the brother of the 1st accused. He
testified that he had not visited the rented house of the accused at Bilathikulam.
On 29.04.2013, at about 11.45 p.m., he got information that Adhithi was admitted
at MCH, Kozhikode. Later, he came to know that Adhithi passed away. He met
the victim in the Casualty and noted the burn injuries on her body and has also
noted the scars at different parts of her body. He accompanied PW2 to Nadakkavu
Police Station.
44. PW9 (Malathi) is the maternal grandmother of the victim. She stated
that her daughter, Sreeja, had died in a motor accident, and that the first accused
was her daughter's husband. She further deposed that when her husband attempted
to enter the rented house of the accused at Bilathikulam, he was prevented from
2025:KER:81529
doing so as the accused used dogs to obstruct his entry.
45. PW10 (P. Asokan) is another neighbour of the accused. He deposed
that the accused used to ill-treat and torture the children. He further stated that on
one occasion, he personally witnessed the accused inflicting blows upon the
deceased. He heard the cries of the children on numerous occasions. On the
alleged day of occurrence, at about 2.30 to 3.30, he heard severe cries of the
deceased.
46. PW11 (Dr.Ambili Aravind) is the Assistant Surgeon of Government
General Hospital, Kozhikode. She examined PW1 on 08.05.2013 with a history of
assault by father and stepmother. She issued Ext.P9 wound certificate.
47. PW12 (Terrance Sunderraj Michael) is the Peon of BMUP School,
wherein PW1 and the victim studied. Police have seized the records from the
school as per Ext.P10 seizure mahazar.
48. PW13 (Umadevi Antharjanam) is the mother of the 1st accused. She
would say that the accused and their family resided in three rented houses in
Kozhikode. They have resided in a rented house at Bilathikulam. She visited the
first two rented houses, wherein the accused and family resided.
49. PW13 asserted that the 2nd accused used to torture the victims and
never supplied food to them. PW13 has noted several scars on their body. When
she enquired about the matter with the 1st accused, he told her that she need not
2025:KER:81529
interfere in such matters. Once she attempted to visit the house at Bilathikulam
and called the 1st accused expressing her intention to visit their house, the 1st
accused told her that nobody was there in the house and asked her to go back to
Thiruvambady.
50. She would further say that when the 1st accused attempted to sell 68½
cents of land and a house at Thiruvambady, she requested that 5 cents be set apart
to her so that it could be given to the children after her death. But, the 1st accused
sold the entire property. Even though the 1st accused agreed that he would make a
fixed deposit in the name of PW13, his mother, that was also not done.
51. PW14 (Jessy Joseph G.) was the class teacher of Adhithi at BMUP
School. She stated that the deceased was a brilliant student who actively
participated in recitation competitions. However, in December 2012, Adhithi did
not participate in the said event. On making enquiries, PW14 was informed that
Adhithi was unable to attend school due to a fracture on her hand. She further
stated that the deceased had taken leave for a few days in January 2013. On being
asked, PW1 told her that Adhithi is going to study 'vedas'.
52. PW15 (Sibi Jose) is the team member of Childline, Kozhikode. On
05.04.2013, at about 9.30 p.m., he got a call from one Anish and informed him that
one Subramanian Namboodiri and his wife were torturing their children in a rented
house at Bilathikulam. He further deposed that on 08.04.2013, he, in the company
of one Hyderali, went to the residence of the accused, but the house was locked,
2025:KER:81529
and dogs had been set free within the compound, preventing their entry. Hence,
they could not enter the house.
53. PW16 (Shiju P.) is the CPO of the Nadakkavu Police Station. He
witnessed the seizure of the car used for taking the victim to the hospital. PW17
(Mini D.) is the Scientific Assistant, FSL, Kozhikode. She inspected the place of
occurrence on 06.05.2013 and collected blood samples.
54. PW18 (K.C. Sivan) is the photographer, who captured the
photographs of the dead body of Adhithi S. Namboodiri. Ext.P12 series are the
photographs and Ext.P13 is the CD.
55. PW19 (Dr. Jinesh) is the Resident Doctor of Baby Memorial Hospital
(B.M.H.), Kozhikode. He deposed that while he was working in B.M.H., a girl
aged about 6 to 7 years was taken to B.M.H. with the history of Epilepsy at about
11 p.m. by the accused. They told him that they are the parents of the girl. The
girl was brought dead. He has noted several scars of wounds on her body. They
took the girl to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Feeling suspicion about the
cause of death, he informed the matter to the police. In cross-examination, he
would say that there are no records in the hospital about the treatment of the
victim.
56. PW20 (Dinesh Koroth) is the Station House Officer of the Nadakkavu
Police Station. On 29.04.2013, while he was discharging night patrol duty, he got
2025:KER:81529
information from GD charge that a girl aged 6 to 7 years was taken to B.M.H. with
several wounds on her body. On getting the information, he proceeded to B.M.H.
and made an enquiry. He got information that the girl was taken to Medical
College Hospital, Kozhikode. He went to the Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode, wherein he found the dead body of a girl in the Casualty. When he
examined the body, he saw the wounds and scars on her body. He gave
instructions to remove the body to the mortuary. On 30.04.2013, Additional Sub
Inspector registered the case and took up the investigation. The inquest was
conducted. The dress worn by the girl was seized as per Ext.P4 seizure mahazar.
He interrogated the locals and relatives and came to know that the child died due to
the injuries. He submitted Ext.P11 report adding Section 302 of IPC in the crime.
57. PW21 (Biju R.C.) is the Senior Civil Police Officer of Nadakkavu
Police Station. He stated the Investigating Officer seized the marriage certificate
of the accused through Ext.P15 mahazar and also witnessed the seizure of the
marriage certificate.
58. PW23 (M. Anilkumar) is the Proprietor of CVN Kalari treatment
centre, West Hill, Kozhikode. He deposed that the 1st accused approached him on
29.11.2012 for the treatment of the broken hand of his daughter. When he asked
the accused how her hand was broken, he replied that it was due to a fall. Feeling
suspicion about the reply of the 1st accused, he made queries to the child. But, the
child did not respond.
2025:KER:81529
59. He further stated that he felt that the fracture was caused after being
beaten with a stick. He bandaged her hand using some medicines and asked the 1st
accused to take X-Ray of the hand. The accused then told him that he has no
money with him. PW23 paid the amount. Thereafter, the accused came back with
X-Ray results.
60. PW23 further asserted that he told the accused that the process of
bandaging is to be repeated 14 times. Thereafter, the accused came with the girl
one more time for treatment. But, thereafter, he did not approach him. Later, he
visited the temple wherein the 1st accused is working as Santhi. PW23 wanted to
inquire about the condition of the child, but the accused avoided him.
61. PW24 (K.Suresh Babu) issued Ext.P19 ownership certificate of the
house No.I/428B of Calicut Corporation. According to him, the owner of the said
house is one Andikutty (PW7). PW25 (Sabeesh K.M.) is the Village Assistant who
prepared Ext.P20 site plan of the rented house of the accused.
62. PW26 (K.Vijayan) is the Executive Officer of Thrikkalangodu
Thirumanakkunnu Temple. He testified that the marriage of the 1st accused with
the 2nd accused was solemnized in that temple on 20.01.2011. He stated that he
had issued Ext.P21 marriage certificate.
63. PW27 (Dr. Prajith T.M.) is the Assistant Professor of Forensic
Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The autopsy of the deceased was
2025:KER:81529
conducted by a team of doctors namely, Dr.T.M.Prajith, Assistant Professor and
Assistant Police Surgeon, Dr. Shirley Vasu, Professor and Police Surgeon and Dr.
Priyatha P., Junior Resident. Ext.P22 is the post-mortem certificate and Ext.P23 is
the additional post-mortem report. In Ext.P22, they have noted as many as 19
injuries.
64. PW27 further reported that the deceased died of neurogenic shock due
to pain, due to blunt trauma to the back of abdomen and flanks, and prolonged ill
treatment, neglect and manual labour. Injury No.16 is fatal. It could be caused by
beating with a reaper like MO1. Injury Nos.15, 17 to 19 are incidental to injury
No.16. Injury No.16 was fresh. It is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause the death of a person. Injury No.3 could have contributed to death. It is also
reported that he had issued an additional report after examining the chemical
examination report, in which it was mentioned that no poison was detected in the
sample.
65. In cross-examination, PW27 stated that injury Nos.1 and 2 are only
scars. Injury Nos.3 and 4 are partially healed wounds. The scar of scald found at
buttocks and pubic region are not simple or superficial. Depth of injury No.3 is not
mentioned in the certificate. Injury Nos.15 to 19 were caused due to kicking.
Injury No.16 also could be caused by kicking. He further stated that he could not
say how many kicks were given to cause injury Nos.15 to 19 and that in Ext.P22
report, it was mentioned that injury Nos.15 to 19 were caused by stampede by foot
2025:KER:81529
on the back of abdomen. Injury Nos.15 to 19 are the reason for the neurogenic
shock. The internal organs of the deceased were not normal. All the organs were
pale but there were no injuries.
66. PW27 has also stated that neurogenic shock could be caused due to a
variety of reasons. The death was not caused instantaneously. The person must
have died after two or three hours. Stampede could cause injury to internal organs.
He further stated that in the case of Epilepsy, there will be several minutes of
uncontrolled movements of limbs and trunks. He denied the suggestion that the
girl died due to Epilepsy.
Defence version
67. The defence version is that the girl died due to Epilepsy. They had no
intention to cause the death of the victim.
Analysis
68. The first submission by the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is
sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC.
However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge without proper evaluation of
evidence, by non-reading and misreading the evidence of the material witnesses,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has only proved the charge against the
accused under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC and under Section 23 of
the JJ Act.
2025:KER:81529
69. Before we proceed to evaluate the evidence on record, it would be
appropriate to refer Section 300 of IPC.
300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death, or
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused, or
3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid. (emphasis supplied)
70. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab3, a bench of three Judges of the
Apex Court had occasion to discuss about the scope and ambit of clause thirdly of
Section 300 IPC. In Virsa Singh (supra), the Apex Court held as under:
"12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following
facts before it can bring a case under S.300 "thirdly";
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is
present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely
1958 KHC 451
2025:KER:81529
objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry
proceeds further and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described
made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is
purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the
intention of the offender.
13. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and,
of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is
murder under S.300 "thirdly". It does not matter that there was no
intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention
to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to
cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction
between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge
that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the
intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is
proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only
question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the
injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No
one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are
not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must
face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or
reasonably deduced, that the injury was accidental or otherwise
unintentional." (emphasis supplied)
2025:KER:81529
71. In Nankaunoo v. State of U.P.4, another three Judge bench reiterated
and followed the principles laid down in Virsa Singh (supra) case. In Nankaunoo
(supra) applying the Virsa Singh (supra), it was held that:
"intention is different from motive. It is the intention with which the
act is done that makes a difference in arriving at a conclusion whether
the offence is culpable homicide or murder. The third clause of S.300
IPC consists of two parts. Under the first part it must be proved that
there was an intention to inflict the injury that is present and under the
second part it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
12. The emphasis in clause three of S.300 IPC is on the sufficiency of
the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of
nature. When the sufficiency exists and death follows, causing of such
injury is intended and causing of such offence is murder. For
ascertaining the sufficiency of the injury, sometimes the nature of the
weapon used, sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is
caused and sometimes both are relevant. Depending on the nature of
weapon used and situs of the injury, in some cases, the sufficiency of
injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature must be proved
and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has, in fact, taken
place."
72. In Brij Bhukhan v. State of U.P.5, the Apex Court observed that if
numerous injuries found on the body of the deceased and even if none of the
injuries by themselves was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the
death and if cumulatively, they were certainly sufficient in the ordinary course of
2016 KHC 6043
AIR 1957 SC 474
2025:KER:81529
nature to cause the death of the victim, soon after the assault, the offence is clearly
one of murder.
73. The dictum laid down in Virsa Singh (supra) was followed by the
Apex Court in several cases. (See Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala6, Sudershan
Kumar v. State of Delhi7, Ram Murti v. State of Haryana8, State of A.P. v.
Rayavarapu Punnayya9, Mahadeo Ganpat Badavane v. State of
Maharashtra10, Morcha v. State of Rajasthan11, Bakhtawar and Another v. the
State of Haryana12, State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam13, Ramashraya and
Another v. State of M.P.14 , Khuman Singh and Others v. State of M.P.15,
Suchand Bouri v. State of W.B.16, Aradadi Ramudu Slias Aggiramudu v. State
Through Inspector of Police, Yanam17 and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of
Maharashtra18.)
74. Bearing in mind the principles referred to above in Virsa Singh
(supra) and Brij Bhukhan (supra), we shall proceed to evaluate the evidence on
1966 SCC OnLIne SC 50
1975(3) SCC 831
(1976) 4 SCC 308
(1976) 4 SCC 382
1977(3) SCC 264
1979(1) SCC 161
1979(4) SCC 698
1995 (1) SCC 326
2001(3) SCC 439
2005 KHC 1632
(2009) 17 SCC 63
2012(5) SCC 134
(2023)13 SCC 365
2025:KER:81529
record in order to ascertain whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
sufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC or the evidence on record is
only sufficient to prove the lesser offences like one punishable under Sections 323
and 324 IPC, as held by the learned Sessions Judge.
75. The definite case of the prosecution is that PW1, Arun S. Namboodiri,
and the deceased, were subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment, both
mental and physical, by their father and stepmother for a prolonged period of about
ten months in between 26.06.2012 and 29.04.2013, while they resided in a rented
house at Bilathikulam. During the relevant time, Adhithi was aged 51/2 years and
Arun was aged 10 years. The inhuman and barbarous torture by the father and the
stepmother as alleged by the prosecution are as follows:
i. Beating with hands and MO1 wooden reaper, on several
occasions.
ii. Kicking on various parts of their body.
iii. Not providing food to the children and thereby subjecting them
to starvation.
iv. Pouring of boiled water on the private parts of the victim girl,
forcefully.
v. Causing fracture to the hand of the deceased.
vi. Denial of treatment to the victim girl during the relevant period.
2025:KER:81529
76. PW1, the injured, testified that he resided along with the accused and
his deceased sister Adhithi. The 1st accused is his father and the 2nd accused is his
stepmother. He stated that on 29.04.2013, his father beat his younger sister
(Adhithi) stating that she defecated in her skirt. The incident was on a holiday.
His father beat his sister with hands and also using MO-1 wooden reaper on legs.
She cried aloud. He saw the incident from the passage of their house. On seeing
the incident, he also cried. Thereafter, his father went out. Adhithi went to the
room and laid down.
77. He further stated that after the said incident, he went out to play. The
stepmother called him back and he returned to his house. At that time, the
stepmother asked to hold the legs of his sister. They together shifted the girl to
another room near the well. He again went out. His father, the 1st accused came
back at about 8 p.m. and he made some arrangements for shifting of the house to
another place namely Kunduparambu. His father came back at about 10 p.m. and
they were about to have their dinner. His sister did not come up for dinner on that
day. The 2nd accused called her 'Arche... Arche...'. The girl did not respond. The
accused rushed to the room of Adhithi. The 2nd accused applied some massage on
her hands and said something. In the meantime, the accused took Adhithi to
hospital. He further stated that, on the next day, his paternal uncle came to their
house and informed him that Adhithi is no more. He took him to his house at
Thiruvambady.
2025:KER:81529
78. PW1 further deposed that the daughter and brother of his stepmother
used to come to their house occasionally. He would add that initially, the accused
had affection towards them. But, later they used to beat them and compelled them
to do the household chores.
79. He further asserted that if they failed to wake up at 4 a.m., the accused
used to beat them. One day, when he came back from the temple after darshan,
Adhithi was crying. When he asked her why she was crying, she told that the 2nd
accused persuaded her to drink hot barley water and she suffered burns in her
mouth. Another day, Adhithi told him that the stepmother has poured hot water on
her genital organ, thigh and anal area.
80. PW1 further stated that during 2013, Adhithi did not go to school for
about two months immediately preceding summer vacation as there were scars on
her body due to the blows inflicted by the accused. He also gave evidence to the
tune that when he came back after attending school, stepmother told him that she
broke the hands of Adhithi. The teachers in their school asked him why Adhithi is
not attending school, then he replied that she is going to study 'vedas', as
instructed by the stepmother. He asserted that both the accused used to beat him
using a wooden reaper and due to the forceful hit, often blood oozed out. He has
not divulged it to anyone due to the fear of his stepmother.
81. On 08.05.2013, a week after the incident, PW1 was examined by
PW11 (Dr. Ambili Aravind), the Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital
2025:KER:81529
Kozhikode. She has issued Ext.P9 wound certificate. In Ext.P9, PW11 has noted
the following scars on various parts of his body:
1. Linear scars on the left shoulder 4 cm size.
2. Linear scars on the left elbow 5 cm size.
3. Multiple small scars on the left elbow.
4. Linear scar 3 x 1 cm on the left forearm.
5. A scar 2 x 1 cm on the right elbow joint.
6. Two hypo pigmental linear scars on the back right side 5 cm long.
7. Two hypo pigmental linear scars approximately 5 cm over the left side of
the neck.
8. Three linear scars over the left thigh 4 cm size.
9. Multiple hypo pigmental linear marks on the right thigh.
10.A linear scar 6 x 2 cm size over the skull on the fronto-parietal region."
82. The evidence of PW1 (Arun S. Namboodiri), taken together with the
evidence of PW11 (Dr. Ambili Aravind), clearly depicts the true extent of the
inhuman, sadistic, and demonic torture to which the young children were
subjected. The evidence of PW1 appears to be natural, truthful and inspires the
confidence of this Court. Indeed, he is the best person to speak about the incident
which occurred inside the four walls of the house, maintaining strict secrecy.
The Medical evidence
83. Now, we shall proceed to evaluate the evidence of PW27 (Dr. Prajith
T.M.), the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College,
Kozhikode, who conducted the autopsy of Adhithi and issued Ext.P22
2025:KER:81529
post-mortem certificate. The autopsy of Adhithi was conducted by a team of three
expert doctors consisting of Dr. T.M. Prajith, Assistant Professor and Assistant
Police Surgeon, Dr. Shirley Vasu, Professor and Police Surgeon and Dr. Priyatha
P., Junior Resident. At this juncture, it would be useful to extract the relevant
portion of Ext.P22.
D. SCHEDULE OF OBSERVATIONS AT AUTOPSY
A. GENERAL:
1. Height : 118cm
2. Weight : 23 kg
3. Build : Moderate
4. Nourishment : Poor [DSC 05173 rib cage, DSC05178 front of trunk]
DSC05217, DSC0 5218 left side of chest] Thin distribution (sparse)
brownish dull straight hair 15 cm long on scalp.
Poorly nourished body with eyes sunken, flattened cheeks, superficial skin
infections at multiple sites all over the body (pyoderma), superficial
injuries of different ages of healing on face, trunk and limbs, unhygienic
extremities with and roughened and callused skin of palms and feet,
chipped and dirt ridden finger nails. Ribs and other bones stood out. There
was generalized muscle wasting and loss of body fat. Severe anaemia
(haemoglobin deficiency) as revealed by pallor of the body, poorly
developed postmortem staining and mild oedema of both feet. Mid-arm
circumference measured only 15 cm.
5. Identifying features: Identified Body
6. External appearance
Face : Pale, sunken cheeks. Marks of scalds (see below)
Eyes : Eyes sunken, closed, corneae clear, No subconjunctival
bleeds.
Ears : Unremarkable
Nostrils : Unremarkable
Mouth : Lips scarred due to scalds (Hot liquid burns)
2025:KER:81529
Nails : Chipped and dirty, middle finger of right hand showed
contused tip [DSC02142]
External genitalia: Female, child like with no pubertal changes, Labia
majora -scalded (hot liquid burns). Hymen and vagina intact, normal.
[DSC02140]
Anal Orifice: Normal, but infected scalds on either sides
7. Postmortem changes
Rigor mortis: established and getting lost from jaws and limbs.
[Body refrigerated at 2.30 am on 30.4.2013]
Postmortem hypostasis: was poorly developed due to anaemia (lack of
haemoglobin, the red pigment of blood) on the back of trunk not fixed.
Other postmortem changes (delayed) were absent except
commencement of greenish discolouration of left iliac fossa close to a
large contusion (see below)
Artifacts if any- Nil
B. INJURIES:
a. Postmortem: Nil
b. Therapeutic/latrogenic: Nil
c. Antemortem -Traumatic:
1. Face: Mouth and lip region- Hypo-pigmented bluish white scars of
contact areas (whole extent) of both lips - Scars of scald - the lips
were devoid of their natural crease lines-with 'trickle marks' - scars
extending transversely from corners of mouth to the cheeks on both
sides. The trickle areas were hypo-pigmented with hyper-pigmented
borders. [DSC02134]
2. Neck region - Crescent shaped scar of superficial injury 1.2 x 0.2 cm,
curved down, on upper part of right side of neck 2cm below right
angle of jaw. Another linear scar of a superficial injury 4.3 cm long
obliquely extended with tailing downwards and backwards placed 1
cm behind the first mark. [DSC02135, DSC 05179] There was
another similar mark of same size lower down the right side of neck
curved (concavity) forwards [DSC2983].
There were several similar but less prominent marks on the left
2025:KER:81529
half of upper part of front of neck and on left lower face over an
area 11 x 11 cm varying from 0.8 x 0.1 cm to 3 x 0.1 cm
suggestive of multiple nail imprints and scratches [DSC02143].
Few of such linear crescent shaped scars were found scattered over
adjacent areas, front of chest and over left collar bone areas also.
The marks were pale with hyper-pigmented borders.
3. Pubic and buttocks region - Healing and partially healed (at
periphery) scar of scald (with healing changes) 11 x 6 cm (oblique)
over right supra pubic region, mons pubis and labia majora of the
external genitalia with two yellow deep and firm areas (1x1 cm and
2x1 cm each) yet to be healed at its middle. The yellow hard areas
were surrounded by a border of white scar beyond which they were
surrounded by scar of superficial scald with commencement of
pigmented spots along the hair roots and a still outer border of
increased pigmentation (dark). Trickle mark scars of scald extended
onto both thighs from this. [DSC 0 2138].
Scald with raw red moist areas as extension from the genital scald
were seen on both buttocks (6x4 cm on the left and 4x4 cm on the
right) surrounded by healed scars of scalded areas leaving the anal
region free of scalds. [DSC 03017, DSC05111, DSC05112, 5121,
5122, 5123, 5136, 5153, 5154, 5155 more clearly and 5163].
The scald in the front (pubic region showed better signs of healing
as it was not infected and at back showed signs of failed /delayed
healing due to postural disturbances being at the back and
infection. There were healed scars of scalded areas on vast areas
involving lower back portions of buttocks, all around thighs with
gradient of prominence from front through sides to back and
demarcating the pattern of fold of skirt/petticoat worn and with a
lower horizontal lower border 5 cm above knee on right and 2 cm
above knee on the left side.
[DSC 0302, 306, 307, 3017, 3024]
2025:KER:81529
Patterned scald-scars in the form of mat weave mesh pattern
(similar to that of the common plastic folding cot), pale 2mm
broad pale lines with hyper-pigmented borders were seen
criss-cross on back of both lower and upper limbs.
An area of scar of scald 3x3.5 cm, hypo-pigmented with hair roots
pigmented, on the back of left ankle.
5. Left armpit region- Multiple scars and skin marks
(hyper-pigmentation), all linear, crescent shaped (1.2x0.1 cm each)
and many of them partly overlapping one another clustered over an
area 6x5 cm on the inner aspect of left upper arm just below armpit.
All the crescent shaped marks showed convexity forwards and upper
end being curved and prominent. Three among them were pale
immature scars and about 20 of the others were patterned
hyper-pigmentation of skin; all of them resembled human thumb nail
marks of same healing age as to be caused by right hand holding
down the person. [DSC02145, DSC 02146, DSC02147] DSC05198,
DSC05199, DSC05200, DSC05201, DSC05202, DSC05203]
Remarks on Injuries Nos.1 to 5: The distribution pattern of scald
of mouth region with horizontal trickle mark at corners of mouth and
crescent shaped nail-mark scars around neck and face indicates
attempt at forceful administration of scalding hot fluid by mouth in
supine position and the nature of healing changes indicates it to be
around 3-4 week old.
The scald pattern over pubis with hot liquid tricking down to buttock
and soaking cloth around both thighs and between the mesh of the
surface on (similar to a plastic woven mesh folding cot) which the
deceased was lying or made to lie supine forcefully indicated that
considerable amount of scalding hot fluid was poured onto the
genital region while the child was held forcefully supine, about 3-4
week back. Nail marks indicate restraint during the assault.
6. Right forearm- Multiple marks of dark brown pigmentations,
linear 2mm, transversely around lower part of right forearm, of
2025:KER:81529
different intensity.
Remark: Old marks of restraint of different ages - Over protracted
period possibly from 3-4 week duration [DSC05152, DSC05175
front]
7. Multiple sites of body- Multiple small scars pale, whitish and
pigmented or scab covered of different ages scattered all over the
body, most of them on the upper limbs about elbows [DSC 05156
and DSC05158, DSC05160 right elbow, back of trunk, left shoulder
and back [DSC05164, DSC05165, DSC05166] over the knees
[DSC05170, DSC05171] right upper-arm DSC05176]
Remark: Indicative of child abuse over protracted period
8. Fingers of both hands - healed scar and pigmentation of
superficial wound 3 x 1.2 cm each on back of distal segment of
index and middle fingers of right hand with a small contusion
(black) of tip of middle finger. (Healing changes of same duration as
above.) [DSC 02994, DSC02995] and 2x1.5cm on back of distal part
of left index finger and a smaller area on back of middle finger tip of
left hand [DSC05167]
Remark: Of same age as injury Nos.1 to 5 and could have
sustained in the same incident, 3-4 week old
9. Healed superficial injury as evidenced by two brown scars 0.3 cm
round each 1.2 cm apart, on the right parietal eminence region 2 cm
outer to the perimortem injury; pale epithelialized scalp around.
Remark: Blunt Contact about 3-4 weeks
The following recent injuries were found on the body.
Back of chest
10. Abrasions with interruptions (pattern of a small chain link) 9.5 x 8 cm
over the back of chest 4 cm below the angle of scapula ; areas
showing brown scab and areas showing pale white dermis, inflamed.
2025:KER:81529
[DSC 05119, DSC 05120, DSC 05126, DSC 05136, DSC05137,
DSC0 5161, DSC0 5162]
Remark : Chain link under the body, 1-2 day old
Back of trunk and ankle
11. Superficial lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm on the inner aspect of
left ankle [DSC 05127, DSC 05128, DSC05146] and multiple
linear (scratch) abrasions of same stage of healing on lower part
of back of trunk and buttock [DSC 05139, DSC 05140,
DSC05142, DSC05144]
Remark: Rough contact, 1-2 days old
Right forearm
12. Linear transverse abrasion 0.3 cm across lower part and middle
of right forearm [DSC05152, DSC05216] amidst old pigmentations
of similar nature above and below.
Remark: suggestive of tying down (physical restraint), 1-2 days
old
Right ear lobule
13. Scab (reddish in colour) covered abrasion 0.8 x 0.4 cm on the
right ear lobule (back aspect) and vertical scab covered linear
abrasion 3 cm long on right half of front of neck and a small one at
root of neck on right side. [DSC 05179, DSC05180, DSC 05181]
Remark: pinching,1-2 day older
Teeth loss
14. Traumatic loss of central incisors. Left upper central incisor lost
during eruption stage with socket almost healed(3-4 week back) and
upper right central incisor more recent with socket covered with
blood clot-dull brown ; the inner aspect of lips showed traumatic
hyperemia and abrasion of mucosa and frenulum tear ( 1-2 days )
[DSC 05183, DSC05184, DSC05185]
Remark: Assault, child abuse (old and new injuries)
Left Jaw line
15. Linear abrasion and dermal contusion 2 x 1 cm with 3 cm
2025:KER:81529
vertical extension, across left jaw-line [DSC0 5204, DSC05205,
DSC0 5206]
Remark: Perimortem
16. Contusion of skin and subcutaneous tissues diffusely over vast
areas of lower part of back of abdomen, small of back extending to
flanks and middle of thigh through buttock on left side and up to
upper part of buttock on right side with thick collection of blood
(haematoma) under the subcutaneous fat and overlying the muscle
plane. The collection of haematoma was fresh. Left anterior
superior iliac spine region showed perimortem abrasion 0.8x0.6 cm
[DSC 02122 to DSC02126, DSC02988, DSC02990, DSC0 3008,
05120, 5137, 5139, 5142, 5144, 5163, 5165, 5172, 5207, 5228
(incised) to 5248 except 5242]
Remark: Fatal blunt trauma sustained to back and flanks, in prone
(face down position) as indicated by the counter pressure abrasion of
iliac spine, the perimortem nature of which indicates sudden death.
Stampede with foot is a plausible manner in which this injury could
be cause, perimortem.
17. Linear Cresentic abrasion 0.4 cm on middle of right upper arm
[DSC 05210]
18. Abrasions 05 x 0.3 cm on outer and 1 x 0.3 cm inner ends of
front of left elbow. [DSC05214]
Remark: Injury 17 and 18 were incidental to injury described as
No.15, perimortem
19. Lacerated wound 2.5 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm, oblique, partial
thickness of scalp on the left parietal eminence region, the left front
end 6 cm behind top of ear with under lying bone contusion 1.3 x 1.3
cm. Similar lacerated wound 2.5 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm on the right parietal
eminence region, right front end 6 cm behind top of right ear
showing peri-mortem features [DSC 02127, 2128, 2152-2154,
DSC03022, 5114-5116, 5143, 5223-5226, and 5242]
Remark: Injuries of about the same age as injury 16 (fatal injury)
due to force full contact over edged object like door step, permortem
2025:KER:81529
C. INTERNAL EXAMINATION
1. HEAD
(a) Scalp: Unremarkable internally (external-see injuries)
(b) Skull : Unremarkable but for a small area of contusion (see
injuries)
(c) Meninges, meningeal spaces & cerebral vessels: Normal
(d) Brain (weight. 900 gms) - pale
(e) Orbital, nasal & aural cavities -findings : Normal
2. NECK
(a) Mouth, Tongue & Pharynx : Normal
(b) Larynx & Vocal cords : Normal
(c) Condition of neck tissues : Normal
(d) Thyroid &other cartilage conditions : Normal
(e) Trachea : Normal
3. CHEST
(a) Ribs and Chest wall : No contusions of fractures
(b) Oesophagus : Normal
(c) Trachea & Bronchial Tree: Normal
(d) Pleural Cavities : Unremarkable
(e) Lungs- Right (270g) Pale and fully distended
Left (250g) Pale and fully distended
(f) Pericardial Sac : Unremarkable
(g) Heart findings &Wt. : (200g)
Valves: Normal
Walls: Normal
Chambers: Normal
Coronary arteries: Origin: Normal
(h) Large blood vessels of the body: Normal
4. ABDOMEN
(a) Condition of abdominal wall : see injuries
(b) Peritoneum & Peritoneal cavity : contained 200ml
2025:KER:81529
of blood stained fluid
(c) Stomach (Wall condition, contents & smell, weight):
contained 300 ml of brownish viscid fluid and crushed
pieces of raw mango with green skin; No unusual smell,
mucosa pale
(d) Small intestines including appendix: pale and distended
with gas
(e) Large intestines & Mesenteric Vessels : pale and distended
with gas
(f) Liver including gall bladder : (800g)pale
(g)Spleen : (60g) pale
(h) Pancreas : pale
(i) Kidneys : Right (80g) pale
Left (80g) pale
(j) Adrenals : unremarkable
5. PELVIS
(j) Bladder & Urethra: contained 100 ml of clear urine
(k) Pelvic cavity tissues: unremarkable
(l) Pelvic Bones: intact
6. SPINAL COLUMN &SPINAL CORD
(To be opened where indicated)-Unremarkable
E. OPINION:
1. Probable time since death (Keep all factors including
observations at inquest)
Could have occurred at about 18 hours prior to being kept
in Cold Room (about 8.30 am on 29.4.2013 or so)
2. Cause & manner of death- The cause of death to the best
of my knowledge and belief is:-
a Immediate cause - Neurogenic Shock due to Pain
b Due to - Blunt trauma to back of abdomen
and flanks
3. Which of the injuries of ante-mortem/postmortem and duration
if ante-mortem?
2025:KER:81529
All injuries ante-mortem. Injuries Nos. 1 to 9 were 3 to 4 weeks
old. Injury Nos. 10 to 14 were 1 to 2 days old. Injury Nos. 15 to 19
were received just before death.
4. Manner of causation of injuries.
Prolonged ill treatment, neglect and manual labour
Injury Nos. 1 to 9 as a result of forceful restraint and attempt to
administer scalding hot water by mouth and pouring scalding hot
water onto genital region
Injury Nos. 10 to 14 due to non fatal assault 1-2 days prior to death
Injury Nos. 15 to 19 fatal assault by stampede by foot on back of
abdomen
5. Whether injuries (individually or collectively) are
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature or not?
Yes -Blunt Trauma
6. Any other:
Features of Child Neglect and Physical Abuse for prolonged
period (psychological abuse assumed)
84. PW27 (Dr.Prajith T.M.) opined that the victim died of neurogenic
shock due to pain, due to blunt trauma to back of abdomen and flanks, prolonged
ill treatment, neglect and manual labour. He further stated that injury No.16 is fatal
and that it could be caused by a weapon like MO-1, wooden reaper. He clarified
that Injury No.16 was a fresh injury and was sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause the death of a person. He further opined that Injury No.3 could
have also contributed to the death. During cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that the deceased had died due to Epilepsy.
85. Ext.P22 postmortem report would reveal the condition of the victim
girl at the time of postmortem. The postmortem report states that her face was pale
2025:KER:81529
with sunken cheeks and marks of scalds. Her nourishment was poor and eyes were
sunken.
86. The report would further state that her labia majora was scalded with
hot liquid burns. The report would also reveal that the victim was subjected to
prolonged ill treatment, neglect, physical abuse and manual labour.
87. The evidence of PW1 (Arun) gets corroboration on the material
particulars by the evidence of PW27 (Dr. Prajith). The evidence of PW1 and
PW27 would convincingly establish that the victim girl died due to prolonged
physical and mental torture, neglect and manual labour for about ten months. Due
to continuous ill treatment by the accused and injury No.16 blunt trauma to the
back of abdomen and flanks, she developed neurogenic shock, which is the
immediate cause of death.
The evidence of the neighbours and relatives
88. PWs 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are the neighbours of the deceased. They would
say that they used to hear the cries of PW1 due to the ill treatment by the accused.
They would further state that there was a discussion in the local residence
association about the torture to the children and they informed the matter to the
Child Line. Their evidence further indicates that, although they attempted to
discuss the matter with the accused, they were prevented from entering the house
by three barking dogs that were kept unleashed in the compound. The evidence of
2025:KER:81529
the neighbours would also indicate that the accused used to cover their house by
some clothes above the compound wall to maintain secrecy. On getting the
information, PW15 (Sibi Jose), a Child Line member, proceeded to the house of
the victim on 08.04.2013, but the house was locked and he could not enter the
house.
89. The evidence of PW23 (M. Anilkumar), the proprietor of CVN Kalari
Treatment Centre gave evidence that the 1st accused took the victim girl to him
with a fracture on her hand. He advised the accused to bandage the hand of the
victim for 14 times. However, he approached him only twice for the treatment.
90. PW13 (Umadevi Antharjanam), the mother of the 1st accused, also
gave evidence about the torture of the victims and the non-supply of food to them.
91. The oral evidence of the neighbours and relatives would lend
sufficient corroboration to the version of PW1, on material particulars.
92. On a careful evaluation, scrutiny, weighing and testing of the
prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, we are of the considered opinion
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the homicidal
death of the victim, Adhithi, by the accused. However, the learned Sessions Judge,
while appreciating the evidence, has failed to consider the medical evidence in its
correct perspective.
2025:KER:81529
93. We find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that:
1. Bodily injuries were present on the body of the deceased.
2. The nature of injuries inflicted.
3. The offenders had the intention to inflict injuries.
4. The injuries inflicted are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.
94. The post-mortem report reveals that the six-year-old child was
severely undernourished, with the ribs visibly prominent. The Doctor has recorded
the distribution pattern of scald injuries in the oral region, including horizontal
trickle marks at the corners of the mouth and crescent-shaped nail-mark scars
around the neck and face. These findings, as noted by the Doctor, clearly indicate
an attempt at the forceful administration of scalding hot fluid by mouth while the
child was held in a supine position. The report further records the presence of scald
patterns over the pubic region, with hot liquid trickling down to the buttocks and
soaking the cloth around both thighs and through the mesh of the surface upon
which the deceased was lying or had been forcibly made to lie supine. This pattern
unmistakably suggests that a substantial quantity of scalding liquid was poured
over the child's genital region while the victim was physically restrained. The
presence of distinct nail marks further corroborates the inference of violent
restraint during the assault. Multiple small scars--pale, whitish, pigmented, or
scab-covered--of varying ages were observed across the body, particularly on the
upper limbs near the elbows, the right elbow, the back of the trunk, left shoulder,
2025:KER:81529
back, knees, and right upper arm. These injuries are consistent with repeated and
sustained acts of physical abuse inflicted over a prolonged period of time, thereby
establishing the culpability of the accused in subjecting the minor child to
continuous and brutal cruelty. The immediate cause of death has been determined
to be neurogenic shock, arising from excruciating pain caused by blunt trauma
inflicted upon the back, abdomen, and flanks. The injuries have been inflicted by
both the accused and there is ample material to show the sharing of common
intention. To attract Section 34 IPC two postulates are indispensable (1) The
criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one
person, but more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act
cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in
furtherance of the common intention of all such persons. An accused who is to be
fastened with liability on the strength of Section 34 IPC should have done some act
which has nexus with the offence. The act need not necessarily be overt, even if it
is only a covert act it is enough, provided such a covert act is proved to have been
done by the co-accused in furtherance of the common intention. Hence an act,
whether overt or covert, is indispensable to be done by a co-accused to be fastened
with the liability under the section. In the case on hand, we find that there is ample
evidence to prove the covert and overt acts committed by both the accused.
95. However, despite the existence of overwhelming medical and
circumstantial evidence pointing unmistakably to the brutal and sustained acts of
cruelty over a long period inflicted upon a minor child aged six years, including
2025:KER:81529
severe beatings, the pouring of boiling water on the genitals, multiple fractures,
deliberate starvation, and the resulting physical and psychological trauma
culminating in neurogenic shock, the Trial Court, disregarding these grave and
compelling facts, has nevertheless proceeded to hold as under:
"37. Now the question is whether while causing the said
injury, the accused had intention to cause death or knowledge
that it is likely to cause death?. From the evidence on record, I
find it extremely difficult to accept the case of the prosecution. It
has to be borne in mind that back of the abdomen cannot be
treated as a sensitive part of the body. Further, the evidence of
the doctor would show that the internal organs of the victim had
not sustained any hurt. As the back of the abdomen is not a
sensitive part of the body, the 1st accused cannot be attributed
with the knowledge that if a hurt is caused on that part of the
body, the victim may die. So, the case of the prosecution that the
accused persons had intention to cause the death of the victim or
knowledge that the injuries inflicted would result in the death of
the victim cannot be accepted. The evidence adduced in this case
only would show that the accused inflicted hurt on PW1 and
Adbithi S. Namboothiri in order to make them disciplined and to
bring them up as responsible citizens. When one person does any
act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or
with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any
person, and does hereby cause hurt to any person is said
"voluntarily to cause hurt". So, I find that the evidence let in this
case would disclose voluntary causing of hurt within the
meaning of Section 321 IPC.
2025:KER:81529
96. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge.
The learned Sessions Judge has misread and failed to appreciate the credible
evidence let in by the prosecution and arrived at a perverse finding, which has
resulted in grave failure of justice.
97. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Virsa
Singh (supra), we hold that the present case falls within the "thirdly" clause of
Section 300 IPC. In such circumstances, it is immaterial whether the offender had
the direct intention to cause the death of the victim.
98. Now, we shall consider the powers of the appellate court to set aside
the acquittal under Section 302 of IPC and to convict the accused.
99. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another v. State of
Maharashtra19, the Apex Court had occasioned to discuss about the correct
principle to be applied by the court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. It
was held that the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to reverse
the finding of acquittal. Paragraph No.7 of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade (supra )
reads thus:
"7 This Court had ever since its inception considered the correct
principle to be applied by the Court in an appeal against an order of
acquittal and held that the High Court has full power to review at large
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach
the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be
reversed. The Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor (1934 LR
AIR 1973 SC 2622
2025:KER:81529
61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227.) negatived the legal basis for the
limitation which the several decisions of the High Courts had placed on
the right of the State to appeal under S.417 of the Code. Lord Russel
delivering the judgment of the Board pointed out that there was "no
indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court
in the exercise of its powers as an appellate Tribunal", that no distinction
was drawn "between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal
from a conviction", and that "no limitation should be placed upon that
power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code". He further
pointed out at p. 404 that, "the High Court should and will always give
proper weight and consideration to such matters as : (1) the views of the
trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not
weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right
of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an
appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses". In Sanwat Singh & Others v.
State of Rajasthan ((1961) 3 SCR 120 : AIR 1961 SC 715.), after an
exhaustive review of cases decided by the Privy Council as well as by
this Court, this Court considered the principles laid down in Sheo
Swarup's case (supra) and held that they afforded a correct guide for the
appellate Court's approach to a case against an order of acquittal. It was
again pointed out by Das Gupta, J., delivering the judgment of five
judges in Harbans Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1962 Supp 1
SCR 104 at 109 : AIR 1962 SC 439 : (1962) 1 CriLJ 479.) : "In many
cases, especially the earlier ones the Court has in laying down such
principles emphasised the necessity of interference with an order of
acquittal being based only on 'compelling and substantial reasons' and
has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present an appeal
Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (vide Suraj Pal
Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 194; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953
SCR 418; Puran v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the
words 'compelling reasons's embarrassed some of the High Courts in
exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties
occasionally arose as to what this Court had meant by the words
'compelling reasons'. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis
on 'compelling reasons' but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed
earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a court
2025:KER:81529
must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but
must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the
lower courts to acquit the accused 'and should interfere only if satisfied
after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court
that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable. (Vide
Chinta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal appeal No. 178 of
1959 decided on November 18, 1960; Ashrafkha Haibakha Pathan v.
The State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1960 decided on
December 14, 1960.)
............ On close analysis, it is clear that the principles laid down by the
Court in this matter have remained the same. What may be called the
golden thread running through all these decisions is the rule that in
deciding appeals against acquittal the Court of appeal must examine the
evidence with particular care, must examine also the reason on which
the order of acquittal was based and should interfere with the order only
when satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting judge is clearly
unreasonable. Once the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the
view taken by the lower Court is clearly an unreasonable one that itself
is a 'compelling reason' for interference. For, it is a court's duty to
convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable
doubt, no less than it is its duty to acquit the accused when such guilt is
not so established."
100. In Ediga Sanjanna v. State of A.P.20, the Apex Court reiterated that
the High Court has full power to reverse the finding of acquittal. But while
exercising the powers, the High Court should give proper consideration to such
matters as (1) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2)
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not
weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the
accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an
(1976)2 SCC 210
2025:KER:81529
appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witnesses.
101. It was further observed that the High Court should also take into
account the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal
and must express its reasons in the judgment which lead it to hold that the acquittal
is not justified. Further, if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on
record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial court. It would follow as a corollary from that if the view taken by the trial
court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of
that view would not arise.
102. In Patil Hari Meghaji v. State of Gujarat21, the Supreme Court
opined that the High Court is justified in reversing the order of acquittal, if the trial
court has brushed aside the prosecution evidence on trivial contradictions, small
discrepancies or if the acquittal is based on speculations, misreading of evidence
and unsustainable grounds.
103. In Tota Singh v. State of Punjab22, the Apex court made it clear that
the jurisdiction of the appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with
the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower court to the
(1983)2 SCC 270
(1987)2 SCC 529
2025:KER:81529
consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or
liable to be characterised as perverse.
104. In Mohd. Aslam v. State of U.P.23, the Apex Court held that the
appellate court will be quite justified in setting aside the order of acquittal if it
appears to the court of appeal that improper consideration of the material and
evidence on record was made and the reasonings of the trial Judge are wholly
unjustified. It is only necessary that the court of appeal should weigh the
reasonings of the trial Judge with care and caution in the light of the evidence
adduced in the case by giving cogent reasons as to why such findings are
unreasonable and against the evidence.
105. In Kathavan Servai v. State of T.N.24, the Apex Court declared that
the appellate court is not precluded from assessing the evidence in an appeal
arising from an acquittal. High Court can analyse evidence in detail and give
cogent reasons for not accepting the finding of trial court.
106. In Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra25, the Apex Court
held that the High Court while reversing the finding of an acquittal, as a rule of
prudence, shall give always proper weight and consideration to such matters,
namely,
(1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses
(1993)3 SCC 10
1994 SCC (Cri) 69
(1978) 4 SCC 371
2025:KER:81529
(2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption
certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial
(3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and
(4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact
arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.
107. In Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.26, a bench of three
Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court had elaborately discussed the scope and ambit
of the powers of the High Court in appeals against acquittals. Paragraph Nos.73,
74, 75, 76 and 77 read as under:
"73. I. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Appeals Against
Acquittals
This is the first preliminary submission and it is based on a principle
laid down by this Court that in an appeal against acquittal, the criminal
appellate court will not interfere with the acquittal unless there are
substantial and compelling reasons. The common submission of all
the counsels appearing for the Appellants is, therefore, that the High
Court was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal.
74. The position of law with respect to the jurisdiction of the High
Court in cases of appeals against acquittals is well established. After
reviewing the judgments on this subject, this Court clarified in
Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka (2007 (4) SCC 415) that:
"3. Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language"
2022 KHC 7168
2025:KER:81529
to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion."
75. It is sufficient to note the principle laid down in the Constitution
Bench of this Court in M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963
(2) SCR 405):
"16. ...But the true legal position is that however circumspect and
cautious the approach of the High Court may be in dealing with
appeals against acquittals, it is undoubtedly entitled to reach its own
conclusions upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect
of the guilt or innocence of the accused. This position has been
clarified by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor and
NurMohammad v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 151)...
17. ...Similarly in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953 SCR 418) it
was observed that the interference of the High Court in an appeal
against the order of acquittal would be justified only if there are "very
substantial and compelling reasons to do so". In some other decisions,
it has been stated that an order of acquittal can be reversed only for
"good and sufficiently cogent reasons" or for "strong reasons". In
appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be remembered
that these observations were not intended to lay down a rigid or
inflexible rule which should govern the decision of the High Court in
appeals against acquittals. They were not intended, and should not be
read to have intended to introduce an additional condition in clause (a)
of S.423(1) of the Code. All that the said observations are intended to
emphasise is that the approach of the High Court in dealing with an
appeal against acquittal ought to be cautious because as Lord Russell
observed in the case of Sheo Swarup, the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused "is not certainly weakened by the fact that he has
been acquitted at his trial". Therefore, the test suggested by the
expression "substantial and compelling reasons" should not be
construed as a formula which has to be rigidly applied in every case.
That is the effect of the recent decisions of this Court, for instance, in
Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1961 SC 715) and Harbans
Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 SC 439) and so, it is not necessary
that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the High Court must
2025:KER:81529
necessarily characterise the findings recorded therein as perverse... "
76. Following the Constitution Bench, this Court in Ghurey Lal v.
State of UP (2008 (10) SCC 450) has formulated the following
principles:
"69. The following principles emerge from cases
1. The Appellate Court may review the evidence in appeals against
acquittal under S.378 and S.386 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court
can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial
court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused
possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The
trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial
court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at
issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of
the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons
for holding that the trial court was wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts
should follow the well - settled principles crystallized by number of
judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's
acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for
doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court
would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the
trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist
when: i. The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably
wrong; ii. The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of
law; iii. The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice"; iv. The entire approach of the trial court in
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v. The trial court's
judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi. The trial court
has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has
2025:KER:81529
ignored material documents like dying declarations / report of the
ballistic expert, etc. vii. This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.
2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal,
the other to conviction - the High Courts / Appellate Courts must rule
in favor of the accused."
77. Keeping in mind the above - referred principles we will now
proceed to examine the impugned judgment and see if the High Court
has properly applied the principles while exercising the criminal
appellate jurisdiction against the order of acquittal."
108. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in Rahil v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi27, it is held that the appellate court would not interfere with the
finding of the trial court unless the same finding is wholly perverse or against the
weight of evidence on record. In the event, acquittal is based on findings which are
reasonable and plausible, appellate court would be slow to interfere with the same
as the presumption of innocence stands re-enforced by the acquittal.
109. We have carefully reassessed and evaluated the prosecution evidence,
both oral and documentary. Upon a meticulous consideration of the materials on
record, we are of the considered view that there is ample evidence to substantiate
the charge against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, the Trial Court, by an evident non-reading and
2025 KHC 6611
2025:KER:81529
misreading of the evidence, particularly that of PW27 (Dr. Prajith) and PW1 (Arun
S. Namboodiri), has erroneously concluded that the prosecution evidence was
insufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC. Instead, the Trial Court
found the accused guilty only of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and
324 IPC, and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, thereby reducing the gravity of the offence. The reasoning adopted by the
Trial Court, that the accused lacked the intention to commit the murder of their
children, and that their actions were merely intended to cause hurt with the
supposed object of enforcing discipline, is manifestly untenable, palpably
erroneous, and based on a misapplication of the settled principles of criminal law.
We find that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly
perverse, contrary to the weight of evidence, and unsustainable in law. The totality
of evidence unmistakably points to the existence of a shared intention and a
concerted course of conduct resulting in the death of the child, thereby fully
attracting the provisions of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
110. The trial court has failed to apply the dictum laid down by the Apex
Court in Virsa Singh (supra) followed by a catena of decisions discussed above.
The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal and the judgment rendered was manifestly unjust and unreasonable. The
trial court has ignored and discarded the medical evidence altogether, in our view.
Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge not only discarded and non-read the material
2025:KER:81529
evidence, but also gave undue weight to the defence version.
111. Upon a careful and comprehensive analysis of the evidence on record,
we are of the considered view that there exist substantial and compelling reasons to
interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The
impugned judgment suffers from glaring errors, both factual and legal, which go to
the root of the case. We are constrained to observe that if such a finding of
acquittal is allowed to stand, it would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The
entire approach adopted by the Trial Court in the appreciation of evidence is, in our
considered opinion, patently illegal, manifestly unjust, and wholly unreasonable,
thereby warranting interference by this Court.
112. The defence version that the victim died of epilepsy is found to be
false, improbable, and inherently unreliable. It stands completely contradicted
by the medical and circumstantial evidence on record. Admittedly, the incident
occurred within the four walls of the residential house jointly occupied by the
accused and the victim. In such circumstances, the accused were under a duty,
as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to offer a
reasonable and credible explanation regarding the cause of death. No plausible
or satisfactory explanation has been offered by the appellants in this regard,
which further reinforces the inference of guilt drawn from the prosecution
evidence.
2025:KER:81529
Conclusion
113. In the light of the above discussions, we overturn the finding of
acquittal of the trial Judge under Section 302 IPC and hold that accused Nos.1
and 2 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC
and they are thereby convicted. However, insofar as the charge under Section
307 IPC is concerned, we hold that it is not established by the prosecution,
beyond reasonable doubt.
114. As we are reversing the finding of the Trial Court and proceeding
to convict the accused, it is imperative to hear the accused on the question of
sentence under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
115. Post on 30.10.2025 at 10.15 am, on which day, the accused shall be
produced before this Court by the Station House Officer, Nadakkavu Police
Station, Kozhikode.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Jvt/BR/Sbna
2025:KER:81529
116. The respondents/accused have been produced before this Court
pursuant to our direction dated 29.10.2025. They were duly heard on the
question of sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
117. The first respondent stated that he has not committed any offence.
He submitted that he is employed as a Poojari in a temple at Palakkad and that
he is suffering from epilepsy and several other ailments. The second respondent
asserted her innocence, stating that she too is afflicted with various illnesses,
and she earnestly pleaded for leniency from this Court.
118. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/accused at length under Section 235 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
119. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, though it is well
settled that the extreme penalty of death should not be imposed except in cases
of the gravest nature involving exceptional depravity and extreme culpability,
the present case, by every standard, warrants the imposition of the death
sentence. It was contended that a sentence of life imprisonment, in a case
involving such prolonged and barbaric acts of cruelty, would be grossly
inadequate and fail to meet the ends of justice. Even upon a dispassionate
balancing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the learned
Prosecutor submitted that there can hardly be a more fitting case for the
2025:KER:81529
imposition of capital punishment. She drew pointed attention to the plight of
the victim -- a child of tender age -- who was subjected to inhuman cruelty
and sustained grievous injuries at the hands of those whom she had trusted for
care and protection.
120. Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused, on the other hand, contended that the circumstances of the
case do not justify the imposition of the death penalty. He urged that the Court
must accord due weight to all mitigating factors and that even upon a
comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, it cannot be said that this case falls
within the category of the "rarest of the rare." The learned counsel emphasized
that the normal punishment of imprisonment for life would adequately serve
the ends of justice and uphold the principles of proportionality in sentencing.
121. At this juncture, it may be useful to refer to the law laid down by
the Apex Court with regard to sentencing.
122. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab28, the Apex Court declared
that the death penalty should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare cases",
where the alternative option (life imprisonment) is unquestionably foreclosed.
123. In Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab29, the Apex
[1980 KHC 667]
[(1983) 3 SCC470]
2025:KER:81529
Court has interpreted the "rarest of rare" doctrine in a practical manner and laid
down structured categories to determine when a case qualifies as "rarest of
rare". In Machhi Singh (supra), the Apex Court reiterated that the life
imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception. Paragraph Nos. 33
and 34 of Machhi Singh (supra) reads thus:
"33. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan
Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to
the facts of each individual case where the question of
imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions
emerge from Bachan Singh's case :
(i) The extreme penalty of death need not he inflicted except in
gravest cases of extreme culpability;
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of
the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along
with the circumstances of the 'crime';
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception. In other words death sentence must he imposed only
when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate
punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the
crime, and provided and only provided, the option to impose
sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the
crime and all the relevant circumstances;
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage
and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and
the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
2025:KER:81529
34. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following
questions may be asked and answered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which
renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls
for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no
alternative but to impose death sentence even after according
maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which
speak in favour of the offender?."
124. The principles laid down in Bachan Singh (supra) is reiterated in
Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh30, Md. Mannan alias Abdul
Mannan v. State of Bihar31 and Bhagchandra v. State of M.P32.
125. In a recent decision, Madan v. State of U.P.33, the Apex Court
reiterated that the normal rule is that the offence of murder shall be punished
with the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court can depart from that rule and
impose the sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so.
Such reasons are required to be recorded in writing before imposing the death
sentence. While considering such a question, the Court must have regard to
every relevant circumstance relating to the crime as well as the criminal, the
court finds, but not otherwise, on account of its design and the manner of its
execution, a source of grave danger to the society at large, the court may
[(2019) 10 SCC 423]
[AIR 2019 SC 2934]
[(2021) 18 SCC 274]
[2023 KHC Online 6986]
2025:KER:81529
impose the death sentence.
126. After a careful consideration of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the above referred judgments, we find no reason to depart from the
normal rule and impose the death penalty. We are not able to trace out any
special reasons for imposing the death penalty after evaluating all
circumstances projected before us relating to the crime as well as the criminal.
We are in the aforementioned circumstances of the view that the
respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be sentenced for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC to undergo imprisonment for
life along with fine.
127. In the result, the following sentence is passed:
I. Crl. Appeal No.696 of 2018 is allowed.
II. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court
under Sections 323 and 324 r/w. Section 34 IPC and under Section 23 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are
confirmed.
III. The order of acquittal of the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 307 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge
is also upheld.
IV. The order of acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offence
2025:KER:81529
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is set aside and reversed.
V. The respondents/accused are found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and they are convicted for the said
offence.
VI. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each and in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
VII. If the fine amount is realised, it shall be paid to PW1 as compensation
357(3) Cr.P.C.
VIII. The respondents/accused are entitled to set off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
IX. It is made clear that the sentence shall run concurrently.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
BR/Sbna
