HC acquits woman sentenced for life by lower court

The Madras High Court has acquitted a woman sentenced for life by a Fast Track Mahila Court on the charges of killing her five-year-old daughter after giving her food mixed with pesticide.
A division bench comprising Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice N Authinathan, allowing an appeal by the woman V Shobana against the order of the trial court in Erode district, recently found fault with the trial court judge in awarding life imprisonment.
"We find there is no convincing evidence to hold that it was this accused that killed the girl", the bench said and acquitted her.
The trial court also gave the order without providing legal assistance to her, as the woman's counsel failed to be present in the court on various occasions when the case was taken up. Also when the Public Prosecutor requested time to argue the case, the judge refused to grant time, the judges said.

"This act of the judge in blindly rushing to finish the case is really unwarranted and unfortunate. The judge pronounced the judgement sentencing the poor woman to life imprisonment though absolutely there is no evidence against her," the judges said.
According to the prosecution, Shobana was living with her parents and child in Erode district due to frequent quarrels with her husband.

On August seven, 2015, she gave food mixed with pesticide to the child following which she fainted. Though the girl was taken to a hospital by neighbours, she was declared brought dead, the prosecution submitted.
Police registered cases against Shobana under various sections of the IPC including 302 (punishment for murder) and the Fast Track Mahila Court awarded life imprisonment to her besides imposing a fine of Rs 10,000 on May 6, 2016.

Challenging the order, Shobana filed an appeal in the high court.
Flaying the trial court judge for not providing the woman free legal aid when the counsel appointed by the accused failed to turn up, the bench observed that "the said counsel, it appears, did not have any concern for the ethics and best practises of the legal profession."
Such gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the counsel cannot be allowed to deprive the right of the accused to have legal assistance and to have effective defence, the judges said.