The Additional District and Sessions Court, Taliparamba on Thursday (January 22) sentenced Saranya Valsaraj to imprisonment for life for the murder of her one-and-a-half-year-old son, Viyan, in an incident that took place in 2020. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to her guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Additional District and Sessions Judge Sri. Prasanth K.N. found Saranya guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, the Court acquitted her of the offences under Sections 109 and 120B IPC and also acquitted the co-accused, Nidhin P., of all charges, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove conspiracy or abetment.
The prosecution case was that Saranya, who had a strained marital relationship with her husband, was residing at her maternal house near Thayyil beach along with her family and the deceased child. It was alleged that Saranya was in an extramarital relationship with the second accused, Nidhin, and that both had decided to live together. According to the prosecution, a conspiracy was hatched to eliminate the child, following which, in the early hours of the date of occurrence, Saranya picked up the child under the pretext of breastfeeding and threw him into the sea from the seawall, resulting in his death.
Initially, a missing complaint was lodged after Saranya informed her husband that the child was missing. The case was later converted into a murder investigation upon the recovery of the child’s body from the seawall. The accused were charged under Sections 302, 120B and 109 IPC.
The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen theory, scientific evidence, recovery of material objects, and confession. The defence, while not adducing any evidence, assailed the prosecution case on the ground of lack of direct evidence, alleged lapses in investigation, contradictions in witness testimonies, and procedural irregularities. The Court observed that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances in a cogent manner. It held: “The prosecution has succeeded in proving the chain of circumstances that corroborates the guilt of the first accused in a complete and unbroken manner. Considering the integrity of the circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of murder against the first accused without any hollow of suspicion.”
Medical evidence played a crucial role in the case. The post-mortem examination revealed ante-mortem injuries on the child, and the cause of death was found to be blunt injury sustained to the head. The Court accepted the medical opinion that the death was not due to drowning but was homicidal in nature, caused by forcible impact against a hard surface.
The scene of occurrence was established through witness testimonies, scene mahazar, photographs, and scientific evidence. Bloodstains were detected on the granite stones of the seawall, and traces of seawater were found on the clothes worn by Saranya. The Court noted that the presence of seawater on her clothes was not explained by the defence.
While the prosecution relied on dog-tracking evidence to trace Saranya, the Court declined to treat such evidence as substantive proof. It observed that sniffer dog evidence cannot be treated as direct evidence and can only serve as an aid to investigation, as it is not subject to cross-examination.
The Court also examined the motive aspect in detail. While the prosecution sought to rely on Saranya’s strained marital relationship and her alleged extramarital affair, the Court held that suspicion arising from moral disapproval of personal relationships cannot substitute legal proof. Certain writings in Saranya’s notebook were also relied upon by the prosecution, but the Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove authorship of crucial portions of the writings.
On the charge of conspiracy and abetment, the Court acquitted the second accused, Nidhin, noting the absence of evidence showing communication between him and Saranya immediately before or after the incident. The Court observed: “There is no case for the prosecution that he was involved in the actual commission of the crime… In the absence of such communication, the chance of abetment and conspiracy by the second accused to commit the murder can be negated.”
The Court also expressed concern over certain lapses in the investigation, including attempts to adduce evidence regarding the alleged bad character of the accused and shortcomings in proving handwriting evidence. It remarked that the investigation reflected a lack of professionalism and sensitivity expected in a case involving a grave offence like murder, and called for administrative scrutiny of the conduct of the investigating officer and the public prosecutor.
While considering the question of sentence, the Court weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and held that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty. Emphasising a reformative approach, the Court observed that sentencing should not be driven by public sentiment or sensationalism.
Taking note of the age of the accused, her socio-economic background, absence of criminal antecedents, and the possibility of reform, the Court sentenced Saranya Valsaraj to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh. In default of payment of the fine, she was directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appeal against the conviction and sentence, if any, would lie in accordance with law.
