MARY MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in S.C. No. 28 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein. Originally there were three accused in this case. A1 is the sister of A2. Their mother is PW 2. A3 is the wife of PW 3 who is the paternal uncle of A1. The case of the prosecution was that: First accused was working in Delhi. She fell in love with one Reghu and married him. Out of that relationship a son was born. The relationship between them became strained and for the last three and a half years she is residing with PW 2. In the night of 26.8.1996 there was Thiruonam programme in the courtyard of a house at about 200 metres away from the house of PW 2. PW 2 along with A2 left the house for attending the programme. At that time, A1 was having advanced pregnancy and therefore, A1 and her son did not go to attend the programme. PW 2 and A2 came back at 2 AM in the early morning. Then they saw A1 in an unconscious condition and her eldest son was seen crying. They took A1 to Menathottam Hospital at Ranni. PW 13, the Gynecologist of that hospital at about 5 A.M. on 27.8.1996 examined A1 and issued Ext. P13 certificate. A1 came to the hospital after delivering a child. As the child was not seen with her, PW 13 enquired her where the child was. She said that she put a cloth on the face of the baby and she kept the baby under a coconut tree near her house. A1 also told that she delivered a child at 11 P.M. on 26.8.1996. Eventhough A1 approached the hospital telling the story of abortion, on examination, PW 13 found that A1 delivered a baby and there was no abortion. Then only she disclosed about the delivery. On the basis of this, PW 13 intimated the matter to the police and the dead body was exhumed.

(2.) PW 10, the Assistant Police Surgeon of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued Ext. P9 post mortem certificate. In Ext. P9 post mortem certificate the following injuries were noted by PW 10:

(3.) A2 and A3 were charged only for offences punishable under S.201 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence against them and they were acquitted. The first accused was found guilty under S.302 and 318 IPC. The first accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S.302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under S.318 IPC. Against the order of conviction and sentence, first accused filed this appeal. She had already undergone imprisonment for more than three years.