<p>The High Court of Karnataka has acquitted a woman convicted of murdering her two-month-old baby girl by throwing her into a river outside the Koratagere town in August 2016. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice K Somashekar cited the prosecution's failure to submit corroborating evidence for acquitting Kavitha, who hails from Madakasira taluk in the Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh. </p>.<p>The prosecution's case was that Kavitha had gone to Renuka Hospital in Koratagere with her husband Manjunatha with their baby girl who was suffering from some respiratory problem and epilepsy. The doctor advised a blood test. After a while, Kavitha was found alone at the bus stand. On enquiry, Kavitha led the police to Suvarnamukhi River. The prosecution said that since Kavitha was not getting enough milk to feed the baby, she threw the baby into the river. The autopsy report showed the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of drowning. </p>.<p>The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Kavitha denied the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses against her, but did not submit any defence evidence on her behalf. </p>.<p>On July 22, 2017, the trial court held Kavitha guilty of murdering her own child and sentenced her to life imprisonment. </p>.<p>The trial court appreciated the evidence of two doctors - one who had treated the child and the other who did the autopsy. The trial court held that the circumstances and the doctors' testimony proved that the only inference that can be drawn from the chain of events was that Kavitha threw the child into the river and killed it. </p>.<p>The division bench of the high court, however, noted that the trial court had ignored the fact that five witnesses, including the husband who was the complainant in the case, had turned hostile during the course of the trial. The bench further observed that while the prosecution had relied upon two witnesses to prove the last scene theory, both had turned hostile. </p>.<p>"In the instant case, the importance of corroboration of the evidence which was facilitated by the prosecution, it must be positive, cogent, consistent and probabalised that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. But in the instant case, Kavitha who is none other than the mother of the deceased baby aged two months, though the prosecution in their case put on trial of this accused, subjected examination of PW 1 to PW 15, but no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires intervention," the bench said. </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has acquitted a woman convicted of murdering her two-month-old baby girl by throwing her into a river outside the Koratagere town in August 2016. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice K Somashekar cited the prosecution's failure to submit corroborating evidence for acquitting Kavitha, who hails from Madakasira taluk in the Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh. </p>.<p>The prosecution's case was that Kavitha had gone to Renuka Hospital in Koratagere with her husband Manjunatha with their baby girl who was suffering from some respiratory problem and epilepsy. The doctor advised a blood test. After a while, Kavitha was found alone at the bus stand. On enquiry, Kavitha led the police to Suvarnamukhi River. The prosecution said that since Kavitha was not getting enough milk to feed the baby, she threw the baby into the river. The autopsy report showed the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of drowning. </p>.<p>The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Kavitha denied the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses against her, but did not submit any defence evidence on her behalf. </p>.<p>On July 22, 2017, the trial court held Kavitha guilty of murdering her own child and sentenced her to life imprisonment. </p>.<p>The trial court appreciated the evidence of two doctors - one who had treated the child and the other who did the autopsy. The trial court held that the circumstances and the doctors' testimony proved that the only inference that can be drawn from the chain of events was that Kavitha threw the child into the river and killed it. </p>.<p>The division bench of the high court, however, noted that the trial court had ignored the fact that five witnesses, including the husband who was the complainant in the case, had turned hostile during the course of the trial. The bench further observed that while the prosecution had relied upon two witnesses to prove the last scene theory, both had turned hostile. </p>.<p>"In the instant case, the importance of corroboration of the evidence which was facilitated by the prosecution, it must be positive, cogent, consistent and probabalised that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. But in the instant case, Kavitha who is none other than the mother of the deceased baby aged two months, though the prosecution in their case put on trial of this accused, subjected examination of PW 1 to PW 15, but no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires intervention," the bench said. </p>