The Madras High Court has confirmed the conviction and life sentence imposed on a daily wage worker for having killed his 42-day-old baby boy by holding him by his legs and dropping him headlong to the ground after suspecting his wife’s fidelity.
Justices P.N. Prakash and A.A. Nakkiran dismissed an appeal preferred by Balu alias Balamurugan of Kaikalathur village in Perambalur district despite 10 witnesses from his village having turned hostile and the evidence of others was of no value. The judges relied upon the medical evidence which categorically stated that the baby had died due to head injuries. The post-mortem report stated that there were multiple abrasions in the right frontal area. The anterior fontanelle had opened and brain matter had come out.
The judges pointed out that the President of Kaikalathur Panchayat, before whom the convict surrendered after the crime, had not turned hostile and asserted before the trial court that the convict had confessed to him about the crime. “Of course, the extra-judicial confession of Balu was not taken down in writing but that, by itself, cannot be a reason, to completely discard his testimony. On a thorough analysis of the evidence on record… this criminal appeal is dismissed,” the Bench wrote.
According to the prosecution, the convict had married B. Vennila of Natham village in Sirkazhi in 2013 and she delivered a baby boy in November 2014. However, the relationship between the couple soured and she was subjected to physical abuse. On December 22, 2014, he waylaid his wife when she was going to her maternal home, caught her by hair and hit her with a stone. He snatched the baby from her and dropped it headlong on the ground thereby killing it on the spot.
Refuting the prosecution’s case, the appellant’s counsel argued that the baby actually fell during the scuffle between the couple and that there was absolutely no intent on the part of the appellant to kill the baby as claimed by the police. However, the judges refused to accept the argument on the ground that the convict had taken a contradictory defence before the trial court stating that he was not present at the scene of crime and that it was his wife who wanted to get rid of the baby to marry someone else.
