Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Murdering Infant Girl In 2016

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the conviction of a person sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping and murdering a one-year-four-month-old child in 2016.

The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba stated that the accused’s failure to prove motive is not always fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the appellant hit the dead, an infant, on the floor or stairs of the mandir, causing injuries on her head and other parts, according to the court.

The appellant was accused under Sections 363/302 of the IPC.

The doctor who performed the post-mortem determined that the cause of death was “cranio cerebral damage” caused by a blunt force impact to the head; that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the usual course of nature, the court noted.

According to the prosecution, it was alleged in October 2016 that the deceased child’s neighbour was beating her in Gandhi Chowk. She was later declared ‘brought dead’ in the hospital. The public caught the appellant, and the police arrested him.

The child’s mother testified that the appellant used to threaten her children, and that on the fatal day, the appellant inflicted an injury on the deceased’s leg with a blade. He then took her to Santoshi Mata Mandir, where he hit her head on the third step of the mandir while holding her by the legs. He allegedly beat the deceased’s head on the steps twice more when she arrived.

The appellant’s counsel contended that the child was injured as a result of an “accidental fall” and that a neighbour “spread rumour” about the appellant.

The court noted that the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination indicated unequivocally that “the injury as severe as found in the case of the deceased is not possible due to an accidental fall of a person on a hard surface like marble or cement.”

“Interestingly, no such submission was made by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC,” the court said.

The court highlighted that, while acknowledging his presence at the scene, the appellant indicated that the dead had inadvertently slid from the lap of one neighbour, Ashok Kumar, who was holding her, and that he had falsely implicated the appellant in order to divert the issue.

“Notably, even to Kumar, against whom the aforementioned facts were alleged, no such suggestion was made in cross examination that the deceased had slipped from his lap; and that he had spread the rumour implicating the appellant,” the court stated.

The attorney for the appellant contended that the witness testimonies contradicted the mother’s version of events.

“Suffice it to say that in light of the evidence which has come on record, the testimony of mother cannot be discarded in light of the minor discrepancy pointed out in the aforesaid witnesses account, by the counsel,” the court said.

The court held that “the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt” based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence from the post mortem report. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal and as a result, the appeal is dismissed.”