Infanticide

Introduction
Infanticide — the killing of a newborn or very young child — has no separate statutory label in Indian criminal law but occupies an important place in both criminal adjudication and medico-legal practice. In India it is prosecuted through general homicide provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and through specific offences dealing with exposure and abandonment. For practitioners, the term signals the intersection of criminal mens rea and medical science (especially post‑partum psychiatric disorders), forensic evidence, investigative procedure and sentencing discretion. Understanding how courts classify, prove and mitigate such acts is essential in both prosecution and defence.

Core Legal Framework
– Indian Penal Code, 1860
– Section 299 — Culpable homicide: defines acts causing death with knowledge and intention or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
– Section 300 — Murder: distinguishes murder from culpable homicide and sets out exceptions.
– Section 302 — Punishment for murder: death or life imprisonment.
– Section 304 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder: punishments where culpable homicide is shown but murder is not established.
– Section 317 — Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years by parent or person having charge of it: penalises exposing or leaving any child under twelve to die or suffer injury (punishment: imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine). Note: Section 317 does not require proof of the child’s death; if death results, murder/culpable homicide provisions may also apply depending on intent and circumstances.
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
– Section 154 — Registration of FIR on information regarding cognizable offences.
– Section 161 — Statements to police; relevance at trial.
– Section 174 — Police inquest in case of unnatural death; procedures where a person is found dead.
– Sections 164, 176 — Magistrate’s recording and inquest processes where applicable.
– Indian Evidence Act, 1872
– General rules on admissibility and weight of medical and expert evidence; circumstantial evidence principles (see practice for establishing death and identity of perpetrator).
– Other legal instruments
– Mental health principles: IPC Section 84 (unsoundness of mind/insanity) is central where postpartum psychiatric conditions are invoked.
– Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act — if alleged perpetrator is a juvenile.
– Comparative reference: United Kingdom’s Infanticide Act 1938 (recognised in comparative arguments and policy discussions) — India has not enacted a similar special offence but courts may consider post‑partum conditions as mitigating.

Practical Application and Nuances
How prosecutors frame the offence
– Charging decisions: Infanticide cases are commonly charged under murder (s.302) or culpable homicide (s.299/300/304), depending on evidence of intention or knowledge. Where evidence shows the parent/person in charge deliberately caused death, s.302 is possible. If death arose under circumstances negating murder (e.g., lack of premeditation, grave and sudden provocation, diminished responsibility), prosecution may proceed under s.304/304 Part I/II.
– Alternative/additional charges: Section 317 can be charged where the accused exposed or abandoned the child; if the exposure caused death, s.317 may be added to homicide charges to reflect conduct. Attempt provisions (s.307) and other offences (e.g., causing grievous hurt) may be relevant where the child survived.

How defence and prosecution prove key elements
– Establishing identity and cause of death
– Forensic autopsy is pivotal: time and cause of death, presence of asphyxia, smothering, strangulation marks, internal injuries, head trauma, pattern injuries, poisoning or signs of natural disease must be investigated.
– Age of the child: paediatric pathology and ossification studies, hospital birth records, immunisation/clinic records may help.
– Scene evidence: bed linens, pillows, bloodstains, spacing and position of the baby, toxicology of the environment.
– Mens rea and culpability
– For prosecution: proof of intention to kill or knowledge that actions were likely to cause death is required for murder. Circumstantial evidence must lead to only one inference (conviction).
– For defence: absence of intent (accident), stillbirth, death from natural causes, or third‑party involvement; presenting alternative explanations supported by medical records and experts is key.
– Postpartum psychiatric conditions
– The court will look to psychiatric evaluation, contemporaneous medical records, antenatal history, consultations, and expert testimony. Postpartum depression or psychosis may be raised to negate mens rea, reduce degree of culpability, or invoke insanity (s.84 IPC) or other mitigating circumstances.
– Quality and timing of psychiatric assessment matters: retrospective diagnosis requires thorough documentation of symptoms around the time of the act and reliable expert opinion linking condition to capacity to form intent.
– Investigative procedure and preservation of evidence
– Immediate steps: FIR under s.154, preservation of the scene, seizure of garments/bedclothes, body preservation for autopsy, collection of biological samples (for DNA) from mother and child, hospital records, CCTV and witness statements.
– Use of female investigating officers and sensitivity during interrogation when mother is accused; ensure medical check‑ups and psychiatric assessment are ordered expeditiously.

Concrete examples of courtroom usage
– Prosecution in a case of suspected smothering will rely on autopsy (petechial haemorrhages, congestion), toxicology (to rule out poisoning), and circumstantial proof (no third‑party access, mother’s statements) to establish intentional suffocation.
– Defence in an alleged abandonment leading to death will challenge causation (death due to prematurity, congenital condition), contest chain of custody for forensic samples, and deploy obstetric and neonatal records to show stillbirth or pre‑existing condition.
– Where postpartum psychosis is pleaded, counsel should place contemporaneous behavioural evidence (sleep patterns, hallucinations, express statements), obstetric complications, prior psychiatric history, and a detailed expert report to show altered capacity.

Evidentiary checklist (practical)
– Autopsy and post‑mortem report (with full internal and external findings).
– Obstetric and antenatal records, delivery notes, NICU records.
– DNA samples: mother, child, any other suspected persons; chain of custody documentation.
– Scene photographs and seizures (garments, bedding).
– Statements of family members, neighbours, healthcare staff.
– Psychiatric reports (preferably from psychiatrists with perinatal expertise), and records of any treatment.
– CCTV/telecom data and timestamps; hospital admission/discharge registers.

Landmark Judgments
– K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 — While not an infanticide case, Nanavati is an oft‑cited Supreme Court decision on the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation and its limited application to reduce murder to culpable homicide. Practitioners invoking provocation or sudden loss of self‑control (rare in infanticide but possible where extreme and immediate precipitating factors exist) must show suddenness and absence of cool reflection. Nanavati underscores the narrow compass of provocation as a legal defence.
– Judicial approach to postpartum mental condition — Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly recognised that psychiatric disorders, including post‑partum psychoses, can materially affect culpability and sentencing. Courts have required cogent expert evidence and contemporaneous documentary support before accepting such a defence; when accepted, sentencing has often been mitigated or treated under provisions other than murder. (Practitioners should survey High Court jurisprudence in their circuit for specific precedents admitting medical mitigation in infanticide‑type facts.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
For prosecution
– Build a forensic‑led case from the outset: secure autopsy, preserve scene evidence, seal chain of custody for biological samples and obtain records from hospitals/clinics promptly.
– Anticipate psychiatric defences: procure early psychiatric evaluation and, where appropriate, rebut expert opinion through cross‑examination on differential diagnosis and timing of symptoms.
– Use circumstantial evidence methodically: demonstrate the absence of reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused (classic approach where direct evidence is absent).
– Consider alternative or additional charges (s.317) to ensure culpability is recorded even where causal links to death are contested.

For defence
– Challenge cause of death and timing: alternative medical explanations (prematurity, congenital defects, sudden infant death syndrome — SIDS) can negate intent to kill.
– Attack the forensic chain: contamination, delayed autopsy, missing samples, or poor scene preservation can create reasonable doubt.
– Develop psychiatric mitigation carefully: commission independent psychiatric assessments, document antenatal and postnatal history, obtain contemporaneous statements or hospital notes showing disturbed mental state.
– Plead lesser culpability and argue for sentencing alternatives: if mens rea is disputable, aim to reduce from murder to culpable homicide or other offences; emphasise rehabilitation, medical treatment and absence of prior criminality.
– Manage procedural tactics: file applications for medical examination, quicker trial under juvenile law if age issues arise, and, where appropriate, press for bail supported by medical treatment plans and supervision.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– For prosecution: treating post‑partum psychiatric pleas as per se weak; failure to get timely psychiatric evaluation invites defence narratives. Failure to preserve forensic evidence or documentary medical records is fatal.
– For defence: relying solely on belated psychiatric reports without contemporaneous documentation; overlooking the need to contradict forensic pathology with credible alternative medical opinions.
– For both sides: under‑estimating the role of circumstantial evidence and the standard that guilt must follow beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion
Infanticide prosecutions in India are prosecuted under general homicide provisions and specific offences like s.317 IPC — not under a distinct statutory infanticide offence. Success turns on forensic precision, timely psychiatric and medical evidence, and skilled navigation of circumstantial proof and mens rea doctrines. For prosecutors, early preservation and scientific investigation are decisive; for defence counsel, undermining causation and mens rea and marshaling credible psychiatric mitigation are the central levers. Given the sensitivity of these cases — involving motherhood, mental health, and newborn death — courts exercise careful scrutiny and sentencing discretion. Practitioners must therefore combine forensic literacy, psychiatric expertise and sharp procedural strategy to represent their clients effectively.