A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the police had booked the father and grandmother of the deceased child and put them on trial though there was no material evidence against them.

“The unfair investigation has made the accused suffer the ordeal of long trial and undergo sentence for a crime which was never committed by them. Hence, in the interest of justice, the respondents /accused are acquitted of the offences under Section 23 of the Justice Juvenile Act, 2000 also,” the High Court ordered.

In this case, on February 19, 2014, a two-year-old girl died while she was at home with her grandmother. The parents of the child were divorced and the custody was with the father.

The maternal grandfather of the child raised a suspicion that the child was killed by her paternal grandparents and the post-mortem also revealed that there were 24 ante mortem external injuries on the body of the child. The cause of death was stated to be empty stomach and shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to head caused by blunt force impact.

The trial court acquitted the child’s father and grandmother of the offences of murder, but ordered them to undergo imprisonment for six months for offences under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

The Delhi Police challenged the order and said that the accused should be convicted for murder as well.

After considering the case, the High Court noted that the father of the child was not even home when she fell and died. The Court said that it would be misplaced to assume that the father and grandmother deliberately neglected the child when she fell down.

It also noted the statement of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem that the scratch marks on the body of the child could be possible if she was suffering from eczema and dryness of skin.

“It seems the iron rod and danda (stick) were planted by lady Constable Babita. Moreover, no blood stains or marks were present at the crime spot. On the other hand, the grandmother herself rushed to the hospital carrying the victim child after she fell and sustained injuries.”

The Court, therefore, concluded that accused were not even guilty of the offence under the Juvenile Justice Act and the trial court erred in convicting them.

“Hence, in the interest of justice, the respondents /accused are acquitted of the offences under Section 23 of the Justice Juvenile Act, 2000 also,” the High Court ordered.

It finally cautioned the prosecution department not to file appeals in a casual manner where there is no material to establish that the trial court acted in total disarray.

“Such types of cases cause loss to the public exchequer, precious public time of the courts, energy and time of the prosecution which otherwise can be utilized for the good cause.”

Case Title: State v Usha Devi & Anr.pdf