SC Acquits Woman Accused Of Killing New Born Baby Girl

 By considering the oral evidence on record and taking into consideration the post-mortem report, the Appellant was convicted for the offence by attributing motive that she has strangulated her because the new born is a baby girl. There is no evidence on record to draw such a conclusion against the Appellant. It is clear from the evidence on record, as deposed by PW-7, they already had a male child of the age of 5 years. He has also stated that as they already had a male child, they wanted a female child to complete the family. He further stated that his brother had three daughters which shows that the family was not orthodox and was not averse to have a female child. It is clear from the evidence on record that immediately after birth the baby was put in incubator with oxygen mask and it is also clear that she has not opened the eyes and she did not cry. PW-7, though he was declared hostile by the prosecution, but he has stated in his deposition that he was called to the labour room at 05:00 p.m. to inform that his baby had expired and he was not allowed to see her wife who is the Appellant herein upto 26th August 2007 on which date dead body of the baby girl was sent for post-mortem. It is also to be noticed that there is no reason for sending the body for post-mortem on 26th August when the baby girl died on 24th August 2007. At the same time, it is also to be noticed that the crime was registered against the Appellant only on 31st August 2007. It is true that in the post-mortem, doctor has opined that death is due to asphyxia and there were marks of strangulation, but at the same time if totality of evidence on record is considered, motive is not established and it is totally unnatural for the Appellant-mother to kill her own baby by strangulation. It is also clear from the record that in view of the drugs administered on her she was sleepy and drowsy. In absence of any clear evidence on record, High Court as well as the Trial Court committed error, in attributing motive to the Appellant that, she has killed her baby as she was female. The Trial court as well as the High Court has based conviction on presumptions without any basis. It is fairly well settled that to base conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence, unless chain of circumstances is established conviction cannot be recorded. From the totality of evidence on record it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with an oxygen mask and she has also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after birth. There was a possibility of natural death. Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on record it is not safe to convict the Appellant for the offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. As the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered view that the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, for acquittal from the charge framed against her. {Para 10}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2013 +

Decided On: 17.12.2019

Manju Vs. State of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Author: R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1385, MANU/SC/1763/2019

Print Page

What Precautions Should a Sessions Judge Take While Passing Sentence After Conviction? A Practical BNSS Guide to Avoid Illegality

 Sentencing is not a routine tailpiece to conviction. Once guilt is recorded, the Sessions Judge enters a distinct judicial stage in which fairness, statutory discipline, and recorded reasons become critical; many otherwise sustainable convictions are exposed to appellate criticism because the sentencing part is casual, mechanical, or incomplete.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the safest approach is to treat the process from conviction onward as a structured legal sequence: record a precise finding of guilt, hear the accused on sentence, consider aggravating and mitigating factors, examine previous conviction only in the manner permitted by law, apply probation and compensation provisions where relevant, stay within statutory sentencing limits, grant set-off, and complete all consequential formalities.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Appellants can not rely upon the additional evidence at the appellate stage in the absence of foundational pleadings in plaint

 11.11. Further, even at the stage of the earlier suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the Appellant-Plaintiffs, their consistent case was one of lawful title to the suit property. No plea of adverse possession was ever raised against the Respondent-Defendants. The Appellants wish to rely upon the additional evidence, namely, the entries in the General Land Register maintained by the Respondent-Defendants to show that the suit property is recorded as private land. Such an endeavour, at the appellate stage and in the absence of foundational pleadings, is wholly impermissible in law. Mere recording of the land in suit as private land in the GLR does not in any manner benefit the Appellants claim of ownership.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011

Decided On: 09.03.2026

Gobind Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 211,MANU/SC/0205/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court : Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed To Fill Lacunae In Appeal

11.17. In such a backdrop, when the Appellant-Plaintiffs themselves asserted title on the basis of long and continuous possession through their predecessors, the subsequent attempt to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage assumes little legal significance. Once the trial had concluded and the decree was under challenge in appeal, the Appellants could not be permitted to fill the gaps in their case by seeking to adduce further material to fortify a claim that was fundamentally flawed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011

Decided On: 09.03.2026

Gobind Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 211,MANU/SC/0205/2026

Print Page