Calcutta High Court acquits woman in newborn’s death case, finding no proof she killed the baby

The prosecution alleged that Dipali Roy killed her daughter Bulbuli’s newborn son and disposed of the body near or in the Teesta River.

The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of Bulbuli (PW-2) and her friend Babita Subba (PW-3); the child’s body was never recovered.

The trial court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, but convicted Dipali under Sections 307 and 201 IPC, sentencing her to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

Dipali appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Dipali was responsible for the death of the newborn, warranting conviction under Section 307 IPC.

2. Whether the evidence established that Dipali caused evidence of an offence to disappear, thereby attracting Section 201 IPC.

The Court considered the charges under Sections 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and applied the principle that conjecture and surmise cannot substitute for evidence; where the prosecution evidence leaves material doubt about the accused’s culpability, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.

The Court also directed that the appellant’s bail bonds remain in force for six months under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to her not being wanted in another case.

The Court found material gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. PW-3’s account differed from PW-2’s as to what happened to the child, and the evidence did not establish whether the child was alive when allegedly disposed of or when and how the child died.

The child’s body was not recovered, and the evidence also referred to a possible fall in the toilet or a stillbirth. In these circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved that Dipali caused the child’s death; nor had it established the factual basis for a Section 201 offence, since the child may already have been dead when disposed of.

The Court concluded that the trial judge had resorted to conjecture despite the evidentiary gaps.

The appeal was allowed; the appellant, stated to be on bail, was to be discharged from her bail bonds after six months under Section 437A CrPC, provided she was not required in another case.