KOCHUPENNU KALYANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1124 on the file of the Sessions Court of Kottayam is the appellant. She was tried in the court below for the offence of murder under S. 301 of the Travancore Penal Code. THE charge against her was that she threw her own child, five months old, into a well in a compound not frequented by anybody at about 7. 30 p. m. on 22nd karkadagam 1123. THE evidence disclosed the fact that she was a married woman. Her husband had abandoned her eight or ten years before the date of occurrence. She gave birth to an illegitimate child, after which her own people disowned her. THE result was that she had to maintain herself and her little child by begging in the streets. THE suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution is that she found the child an encumbrance in these circumstances and, therefore, she resorted to this drastic method of putting an end to the life of the child and thus getting rid of that encumbrance.

(2.) THE evidence adduced at the trial did not establish the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. This is made clear by the learned judge in his judgment. He divides the evidence into two wide classes. One set of witnesses referred to the fact that shortly before dusk on the date of occurrence, the accused was seen going by the side of the well with the child in her arms. Later on she was seen alone without the child. THEre was no person who witnessed the child being thrown into the well by the mother. THE other evidence consisted of alleged extra judicial confessions made by her when questioned as to what had happened to her child. With regard to both these classes of evidence the learned judge makes the following observations: 'as regards the first set, even if their evidence is accepted it will only lead to some sort of suspicion. As regards the second set, I am not inclined to place any reliance on it'. THEn the learned judge gives his reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses who have spoken to the second phase by saying that if she was so careful as to select a well in a compound that was not frequented by anybody for destroying her child, it is hardly likely that she would go about publishing the fact that she had killed her child in this manner subsequently. We are in agreement with the view expressed in the judgment of the trial court that the evidence adduced at the trial did not bring the guilt home to the accused.

(3.) ACCORDING to the provisions of the Travancore Criminal procedure Code, at the commencement of the trial the charge has to be read out and explained to the accused and at that stage it is open to the accused to plead guilty or not guilty. But where the accused pleads guilty, the court is not bound to accept that plea and pass sentence on the accused forthwith, although the court will be within its rights in acting in this manner. It is open to the court even when the accused has pleaded guilty, especially when the charge is of a serious crime like murder, to order that the trial shall commence and arrive at a conclusion on the evidence adduced at the trial. This is what the learned Sessions Judge chose to do in the present case. He was within his rights in directing the trial of the accused ignoring the plea of guilty and at the trial the evidence was clearly insufficient to support the charge. It is clear that the conviction was based purely upon the statement made by the accused in response to the questions put to her under S. 282. This is not warranted by the provisions of that section and consequently the conviction cannot stand.