Recently, the Kerala High Court examined the legal question of whether a culpable homicide conviction under section 299 IPC could be upheld when the body of an infant was disposed of in the sea under the belief that it was lifeless.

The Court was appearing an appeal contesting the conviction of parents accused of causing the demise of their infant and discarding the body in the sea. Initially, the Sessions Court had found the parents guilty under Section 302 (pertaining to murder), 201 (related to tampering with evidence) in conjunction with Section 34 (establishing common intention).

After a thorough examination of Section 299 IPC, the Division Bench, led by Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John, acquitted the parents. Their observation concluded that the charge of culpable homicide didn’t apply, given that the actions were carried out on the infant's body under the genuine belief that the infant was already deceased. The court emphasized the absence of intention or awareness on the part of the parents to terminate the infant's life.

As evident from the extracted definition itself, the provision is attracted only when a person does an act which causes death of another, either with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. These three are the species of mens rea contemplated in the provision, and unless it is established that the act of the accused would fall under any of these, it would not amount to an offence of culpable homicide. 

Allegedly, the accused, identified as 1 and 2, the parents of a 6-month-old infant daughter, were charged with causing a head injury to the child and subsequently discarding the body in the sea on October 10, 2015. The infant's remains were discovered in the sea on October 16, 2015. The Sessions Court found the parents guilty of murder while implicating the third accused for assisting in disposing of the body. Accused 1 and 2 have filed an appeal contesting their murder conviction before the High Court.

The counsel for appellant contended that the parents had discarded the infant's body in the sea under the belief that the child was already deceased. The argument asserted that the prosecution failed to establish any evidence indicating that the parents were aware or had knowledge that the child was alive at the time of disposing of the body into the sea.

The Court mentioned that the charges were specifically related to the disposal of the body in the sea rather than causing the head injury. It considered the appellants' argument that they followed their burial customs, believing the child to be deceased. Reviewing witness statements, the Court recognized suspicions of physical abuse towards the child, yet it found insufficient evidence to directly implicate the parents in the abuse. Notably, it highlighted the appellant mother's behavior, notably taking the infant to the hospital for a hand injury and being observed weeping while holding the child by a social worker's testimony. However, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to substantiate any evidence indicating that the parents were aware of the infant's vitality when disposing of the body in the sea.

The Court emphasized that Section 299 IPC, found within Chapter XVI concerning offenses related to the human body, specifically focusing on those affecting life, did not align with the circumstances of this case. It pointed out that this particular provision couldn't be applicable as the parents lacked the intention to cause harm or death to the infant. Moreover, they had no knowledge that their actions would result in the infant's demise. Consequently, the Court concluded that Section 299 IPC wouldn't apply to actions carried out on the infant under the belief that the child was already deceased.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction against the parents under Section 302 201, read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted them. Counsel for the appellants: Advocate J.R.Prem Navaz, Sumin.S, P Yemuna K, Counsel for the respondents: Special Government Pleader Ambika Devi S

Case Title: Prathibha v State of Kerala