Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Sentence Against Mother Convicted of Murdering Her Two Infant Sons

A Division Bench at Ranchi dismissed an appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC, holding that circumstantial evidence firmly established the appellant's guilt in the deaths of her two young children in Jamshedpur in May 2013.

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi has dismissed the criminal appeal of Shama Parveen, who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur for the murder of her two sons — Kasif Umar, aged four, and Sarif Umar, aged two — and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, leading the Division Bench along with Justice Arun Kumar Rai, authored the judgment on 4 August 2026. The Bench found that despite most prosecution witnesses turning hostile, the combined weight of autopsy evidence, the investigating officer's testimony, and the appellant's own conduct as a defence witness left no room for acquittal.

The Trial Court Conviction

The matter originated from Sakchi P.S. Case No. 159 of 2013, registered on 20 May 2013 under Sections 302, 494, 109, and 406 IPC. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 573 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur.

Shri Shesh Nath Singh, the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur, convicted Shama Parveen under Section 302/34 IPC by judgment dated 23 July 2021, with sentence passed on 24 July 2021. She was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000, with a default sentence of six months' imprisonment. Aggrieved, she preferred Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 237 of 2021 before the High Court.

The Prosecution Case and the Alleged Motive

The prosecution case rested on a written report lodged by Md. Rakib, the appellant's husband. According to the report, on the evening of 19 May 2013, Shama Parveen left home with her two sons, ostensibly to visit a neighbour named Manjoor Alam to recover a loan of Rs. 35,000 that he owed the family. She did not return that night. The following morning, on 20 May 2013, a neighbour informed Rakib that Shama Parveen was sitting on the road outside the house in an unconscious and dishevelled state. Shortly after she was brought home, the same neighbour returned to disclose that both children were lying in a drain near the house, wrapped in cloth. When Rakib reached the spot, he found the children's bodies wrapped in his wife's saree, with blood visible from wounds on their necks and wrists.

The prosecution's case was that Manjoor Alam, who reportedly owed money to the family and was alleged to have had an illicit relationship with Shama Parveen, wanted to marry her. The children were said to be an obstacle to that plan. The informant alleged that Shama Parveen committed the murders at Manjoor Alam's instigation.

Medical Evidence and the Forensic Record

P.W.1, Dr. Lalan Choudhury, an Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at MGM College, Jamshedpur, conducted autopsies on both children on 20 May 2013. The post-mortem of Sarif revealed multiple incised wounds on the right side of the neck, the medial aspects of both wrists, and a chemical burn mark over the lips and oral cavity. The cause of death was opined to be poisoning. The post-mortem of Kasif revealed antemortem chemical burns over the right side of the face, mouth, left side of the neck, both eyelids, nose, right ear, and oral cavity; the cause of death was also attributed to poisoning.

The appellant's counsel argued before the High Court that without a viscera report, the doctor's finding of death by poisoning was erroneous. The Division Bench did not accept this as a basis for acquittal, noting that the autopsy findings were consistent with the other material on record.

A Hostile Witness Problem and What Survived It

Of the nine prosecution witnesses examined at trial, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.9 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The Division Bench acknowledged plainly that the witnesses of substance were effectively only P.W.1 (the doctor), P.W.4 (the informant-husband), and P.W.5 (the investigating officer).

P.W.4, Md. Rakib, confirmed the sequence of events on 19 and 20 May 2013. Under cross-examination, he admitted he had not witnessed the murders and claimed not to have authored the written report himself. The Bench noted an “aberration” in his conduct — he made no effort to search for his wife despite her not returning home at night — but found that this did not materially dislodge the other incriminating circumstances.

P.W.5, Sub-Inspector Ram Charit Pal of Sakchi P.S., provided the most consequential testimony on the recovery side of the case. He deposed that on the basis of the appellant's confessional statement, a blood-stained blade and coloured bangles were recovered from a location about 200 metres from the primary scene. He also testified that the portion of a saree's pallu recovered from the drain near Quarter No. L-1/16 matched the saree the appellant was wearing. Multiple seizure lists were prepared and proved as exhibits. He sent the seized articles to the forensic science laboratory and submitted the charge sheet on completion of investigation.

The Appellant's Own Testimony as a Double-Edged Account

Shama Parveen chose to examine herself as D.W.1 in her defence. She gave an account that she had gone to Manjoor Alam's house on the evening of 20 May 2013 with her children to recover the loan amount and certain mortgaged jewellery. She stated that Manjoor Alam had misbehaved with her, tied her hands and mouth, and administered a Pepsi-based substance to the children, after which Manjoor Alam himself murdered the children.

The Division Bench found this narrative unconvincing. The Bench observed that her account appeared deliberately calibrated to align with the autopsy finding of death by poisoning — the reference to Pepsi being administered — while placing all criminal agency on Manjoor Alam. The Bench also noted that she had admitted in her Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement that Manjoor Alam was desirous of solemnising marriage with her, which corroborated the prosecution's motive. She had not disclosed the incident to the Magistrate when produced before him, and in cross-examination as D.W.1 she denied that the murders were committed by her in connivance with Manjoor Alam.

Critically, by taking the stand and admitting she was present at Manjoor Alam's house that evening with both children, the appellant herself placed all three at the scene. The Bench held that her narration “appears to have been deliberately made to correlate with the findings in the autopsy report” and that no adequate explanation for the episode had been furnished.

How the Division Bench Reasoned on Circumstantial Evidence

The appellant's counsel pressed the argument that the conviction was entirely circumstantial, that most witnesses had turned hostile, and that the appellant had already undergone more than 13 years of incarceration. The argument was that this combination warranted acquittal in the absence of concrete evidence.

The Division Bench did not accept that formulation. It identified the following interlocking circumstances as pointing unambiguously to guilt: the appellant's own admission that she was with the children at the relevant time and place; the pallu of her saree, in which the bodies were wrapped, matching the garment she was wearing; the recovery of a blood-stained blade on the basis of her confessional statement, consistent with the incised wounds found on Sarif's neck and wrists; the alleged illicit relationship with Manjoor Alam and the motive of clearing the path to marriage; and the absence of any credible explanation from the appellant for the deaths of her children.

The Bench characterised the manner of the killings as “brutal and grotesque” and held that the appellant, instead of protecting her children, had acted against them. The trial court was found to have considered the essential features of the case aptly in arriving at the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 237 of 2021, affirming the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur. The fine of Rs. 20,000, with the default sentence of six months' imprisonment, was also sustained. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.