The Supreme Court has upheld the life sentence awarded to a man who killed his infant daughter by pouring acid into her mouth as he felt she could claim a share in his property in future.
A Bench of Justices H.S. Bedi and C.K. Prasad also said the High Court can intervene and reverse an acquittal if the evidence on record establishes the guilt, as otherwise such acquittal would be a miscarriage of justice.
"It is undoubtedly true that if two views are possible and the trial court has recorded an acquittal, interference by the High Court should be restricted. However, in case the High Court finds that the view taken by the trial court was not based on the evidence, it would defeat the ends of justice if the order was not set aside.
"We are of the opinion that the present case falls under the category where the High Court was fully justified in interfering in the matter," the apex court said.
The court passed the order while dismissing the appeal of Beere Gowda, charged with killing his two-and-a-half years old daughter Pallavi, by pouring acid into her mouth.
According to the prosecution, Gowda carried out the gruesome act with the help of Indiramma whom he had allegedly married without divorcing his first wife Jayanthi. The victim was Jayanthi's daughter.
The duo was accused of forcibly administering acid to the child resulting in her death on September 22, 1996. Gowda feared that the girl might claim a share in his property in future, it was alleged by the prosecution.
The sessions court in Karnataka, however, acquitted Gowda and Indiramma of the charge, taking the view that the child had accidentally consumed the acid.
The Karnataka High Court on an appeal reversed the acquittal against Gowda and imposed life sentence on him. It, however, upheld the acquittal of Indiramma.
Aggrieved, Gowda appealed in the apex court.
Dismissing the appeal, the apex court said, "The view taken by the trial court to our mind was not justified to say the least.
"There is one strong circumstance which has not been noticed by the either of the courts below but has been pointed out by the learned State counsel, that nitric and sulphuric acid would not be of any domestic use and would not be available as a household article," the Bench said.
It said the evidence indicated that the two acids had been mixed and thereafter the concoction forcibly put into the mouth of the child.
"The High Court's observation that acid had been forcibly put into the mouth is based on the medical evidence as injuries had been found all over the body including the mouth, arms and the chest which clearly showed that the child had tried to save herself and had fought back when the acid was being administered.
"It has rightly been pointed out by the High Court that if the acid had been taken accidentally by the child there would have been no burn injuries on other parts of the body as they would have been confined only to the mouth and the lips," the Bench added.