A Thane mother has been sentenced to life imprisonment after her two daughters testified that she attacked their 18-month-old sister with a kitchen knife. But why did the father, who first tried to get medical help, still get four years in jail?
MAHARASHTRA: A Thane court has sentenced a 28-year-old woman to life imprisonment for murdering her 18-month-old daughter in 2024. The court also sentenced her husband to four years in jail for helping in hiding the crime and destroying evidence after the child’s death.
Sessions Judge R.D. Sawant passed the order on Wednesday. The court rejected the defence claim that the child had died because of a rare skin disease.
The prosecution had asked for the death penalty by saying that the case came under the “rarest of rare” category. However, the court did not accept this demand and held that rigorous life imprisonment would be enough to meet the ends of justice.
The court convicted Noorani Khatun Jahid Shaikh, aged 28, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder. Her husband, Jahid Salamat Shaikh, aged 38, was convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence to save the offender from punishment.
The incident happened at the couple’s house in Mumbra area of Thane district, Maharashtra, between March 18 and March 19, 2024.
The crime came to light after an anonymous complaint, along with photographs, was sent to the police. This led to a detailed forensic investigation. Later, the body of the toddler was taken out from a local graveyard for post-mortem examination.
The prosecution mainly relied on medical evidence and the statements of the couple’s two elder daughters. Both girls had seen their mother attacking the infant with a sharp kitchen knife. One of the daughters was also found to be a victim of domestic violence.
The defence argued that the child had died naturally due to Epidermolysis Bullosa, a rare genetic skin disorder which causes serious blistering and tearing of skin. But the court rejected this theory after considering the medical evidence given by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem after exhumation.
The post-mortem report showed 14 clear sharp incised wounds on the scalp and neck area of the child. These injuries were not consistent with any skin disease.
The court observed that when an offence takes place secretly inside the house, the type of evidence required cannot be the same as in normal cases of circumstantial evidence.
The court further observed that the accused cannot escape by giving an explanation which is not reasonable or probable.
The court also said that the manner and circumstances in which the child died were within the special knowledge of the accused. Therefore, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden was on the accused to explain how the child died inside their house.
The court held that failure of the accused to explain the cause of death became an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against them.
While dealing with the role of the father, the court noted that his first reaction after the stabbing was to arrange emergency medical treatment for the child. The court also noted that there was no material to show that he had caused any injury to the deceased child.
The court said that the only allegation against him was that he did not inform the police about the incident and later tried to destroy evidence.
However, after the child died, the court found that he helped his wife by obtaining a death certificate on the basis of a false history and arranged a hurried burial. The court held that this was done to hide the crime from legal punishment.
The court accepted the evidence of the minor daughters and held that a competent and reliable child witness can become the sole basis for conviction.
Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi Kshirsagar examined 16 witnesses to prove the charges.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED IN THIS CASE
| LAW / SECTION | WHAT IT MEANS | HOW IT APPLIED IN THIS CASE |
| Section 302 IPC | Punishment for murder. It applies when a person intentionally causes death or causes such bodily injury which is likely to cause death. | Noorani Khatun Jahid Shaikh was convicted under this section for murdering her 18-month-old daughter. The court sentenced her to rigorous life imprisonment. |
| Section 201 IPC | Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to protect an offender from legal punishment. | Jahid Salamat Shaikh, the child’s father, was convicted because after the child died, he helped in obtaining a death certificate on false history and arranged a hurried burial to hide the crime. |
| Section 106 Evidence Act | When a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of explaining that fact is on that person. | The child died inside the house. The court held that the accused had special knowledge about how the child died, so they had to give a reasonable explanation. Their failure became an additional link in the prosecution case. |
| “Rarest of rare” principle | Death penalty is awarded only in the most extreme murder cases where life imprisonment is not enough. | The prosecution sought capital punishment, but the court rejected it and held that rigorous life imprisonment would serve justice. |
| Child Witness Evidence | A child witness can be relied upon if the court finds the child competent, truthful and reliable. | The court accepted the testimony of the couple’s two elder daughters, who said they saw their mother assaulting the infant with a sharp kitchen knife. |
| Medical / Post-Mortem Evidence | Medical evidence helps prove the cause and nature of injuries. | The post-mortem after exhumation showed 14 sharp incised wounds on the scalp and neck area, which did not support the defence theory of a rare skin disorder. |
| Circumstantial Evidence In House Death Cases | When a crime happens secretly inside a house, the court may rely on surrounding circumstances, medical evidence and conduct of accused. | The court observed that evidence in a secret house crime cannot be expected in the same way as other circumstantial evidence cases. |
CASE DETAILS
| DETAIL | INFORMATION |
| Court | Sessions Court, Thane, Maharashtra |
| Judge / Bench | Sessions Judge R.D. Sawant |
| Accused No. 1 | Noorani Khatun Jahid Shaikh, 28 |
| Accused No. 2 | Jahid Salamat Shaikh, 38 |
| Victim | 18-month-old daughter of the accused couple |
| Incident Date | Between March 18 and March 19, 2024 |
| Place of Incident | Mumbra area, Thane district, Maharashtra |
| Conviction of Mother | Section 302 IPC |
| Sentence of Mother | Rigorous life imprisonment |
| Conviction of Father | Section 201 IPC |
| Sentence of Father | Four years’ imprisonment |
| Prosecutor | Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi Kshirsagar |
| Prosecution Witnesses | 16 witnesses examined |
| Defence Claim | Child died naturally due to Epidermolysis Bullosa |
| Court’s Finding On Defence Claim | Rejected, because medical evidence showed sharp incised wounds |
| Counsels For Prosecution | Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi Kshirsagar |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The mother was convicted for murder, but the father also lost years of his life because he stayed silent after the child’s death.
- The court clearly noted that there was no material to show that the father caused any injury to the child, yet his later conduct brought him punishment.
- Men must understand one harsh legal truth: protecting a wife after a crime can make you an accused, not a victim.
- The father’s first act was to arrange medical help, but his failure to report the incident and the hurried burial turned the case against him.
- This case is a warning for every man: family pressure, fear, shame or emotional weakness cannot save you in law. Truth must be reported immediately.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.