Criminology and Penology Case: HMG vs. Samjhana Lamichhane, NKP 2060 B.S, P 77, D.N. 7169
Case: Infanticide
Plaintiff/Applicant: HMG
Defendant/Respondent: Samjhana Lamichhane
Decision Number: 7169
This case is about the murder of a baby (infanticide).
Facts of the Case:
Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal got pregnant as a result of an illegal relationship with her brother-in-law Manoj Mukhiya. She kept the pregnancy a secret from her family, even from her own mother, to avoid social stigma and disgrace. She secretly gave birth at home without informing anyone on 31 Shrawan 2058 B.S. Police lodged a report after the body of a newborn baby was found. In the course of the inspection, the police discovered a wound on the right temple of the baby’s head which was about two inches long and looked suspicious. The accused first made a statement to the investigating officer that the baby fell to the ground during childbirth and died as a result. She has said that she did not mean to kill the child. She told the court that she did not kill the baby and that the child fell to the ground when she was in great pain and briefly unconscious. The investigation, however, found that there were no stones or objects at the place of birth which could have caused the injury described by the accused. It was also revealed that upon the child’s birth, she wrapped her body and took it to a field below the house, where she hid it from others. From the physical evidence, the concealment of the pregnancy and body and the circumstances, the prosecution drew the conclusion that the child was born alive and that the accused had intended to kill the child to prevent social stigma.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the prosecution has established on a reasonable doubt standard that the accused killed the newborn child intentionally and in fact.
- Whether the accused had committed the offence under Chapter on Homicide, Sections 1 and 13(3) of the Muluki Ain.
- Reducing the mandatory punishment of life imprisonment with confiscation of property, taking into account the age, social background and circumstances of the accused in the context of No. 188 of the Chapter on Court Procedure.
Different Courts Decisions:
District Court:
Gorkha District Court found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal killed her newborn child on purpose. Under Sections 1 and 13(3) of the Chapter on Homicide of the Muluki Ain, it found her guilty which prescribes life imprisonment with confiscation of property. The Court, however, noted that the accused was only about 18-19 years old, that she committed the offence to hide the illegitimate pregnancy and to avoid social disgrace and that she did not use any deadly weapon to commit the offence, and therefore, the Court considered the statutory punishment as too harsh. Exercising its power under No. 188 of the Chapter on Court Procedure, it recommended that her sentence be reduced to five years imprisonment instead of life imprisonment.
Appellate Court:
Pokhara Appellate Court upheld the District Court’s decision and agreed that the prosecution had established the offence of murder. It had concluded that the accused was legally liable to the punishment provided in Section 13(3) which was life imprisonment with confiscation of property. However, it agreed that this would be too harsh taking into consideration the age of the accused and the context of the offence. Therefore, it accepted the recommendation of the District Court to impose five years imprisonment and remanded it to the Supreme Court for confirmation of sentence (Sadhak review).
Supreme Court:
On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction. It concluded that the accused had intentionally concealed her pregnancy from everyone, given birth to the child without informing anyone, and intentionally killed the child. Her defence of accidental death after the child fell onto stones during childbirth was rejected as there were no stones found at the place of delivery. It also took the injury on the baby’s head, the concealment of the pregnancy and the accused’s act of wrapping the baby up in cloth and hiding it in a nearby field as strong circumstantial evidence that she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Supreme Court accepted that the offence was one which attracted life imprisonment with confiscation of property but it found that even the lesser sentence of five years imprisonment recommended by the lower courts was too harsh. Considering the accused’s tender age, the background of the offence, the social stigma attached to an out of wedlock pregnancy and the social situation, the Court found that the time already served by the accused was adequate to secure the ends of justice. It thus shortened her sentence to what she had already served and ordered her immediate release.
Principle Established:
- When all the circumstances point to the accused and there is no direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may be enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- The concealment of pregnancy, secret childbirth, concealment of the body and false explanations may all constitute a criminal intent.
- Young age, social and societal pressures are relevant mitigating factors in sentencing the offender.
- The aim of sentencing is not just punishment but also justice that is proportionate with the circumstance of the offence.
