Delhi court convicts parents for abandoning premature, vulnerable infant

A Delhi court has convicted a couple for abandoning their premature and medically vulnerable infant in a hospital, rejecting their contention that leaving the infant in a specialised medical facility showed an intention to provide treatment rather than abandon her.

Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Kumar convicted Hareena Ray alias Reena and her husband Jeetu Kumar under Section 317 (exposure and abandonment of child under 12 years by parent or person having care of it) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Under IPC Section 317, the punishment for exposing or abandoning a child under the age of 12 years by a parent or caretaker is imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, or both. In an order dated September 10, the court said, “The circumstances proved on record, when appreciated cumulatively, establish the act of leaving the child was accompanied by the requisite intention of wholly abandoning her, which is the essential ingredient of Section 317 IPC.”

The court noted that the girl was born prematurely at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital on December 12, 2014, and was admitted to the NICU as she was underweight and suffering from medical complications.

According to the prosecution, the parents left the hospital and did not return to care for the infant despite repeated efforts to contact them. The infant was subsequently handed over to Nirmal Chhaya for care on March 12, 2015, where she died a few days later.

The court relied, among other evidence, on the DNA report which established that Reena and Jeetu Kumar were the biological mother and father of the deceased child.
It rejected the defence contention that leaving the infant in a specialised medical facility showed an intention to provide treatment rather than abandon her.

“The essence of the offence is leaving/exposing the child with intention of wholly abandoning the child,” the court said.
The court said that the child was medically vulnerable and the accused, being her parents, were under an obligation to care for her. Their failure to resume care even after the child was discharged from the NICU and repeated efforts were made to contact them indicated their intention to wholly abandon her.

It also rejected the argument that the absence of an eyewitness to the abandonment weakened the prosecution case, saying the requisite intention could be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused.

The court further held that minor discrepancies regarding the child’s name and other details in different documents did not affect the prosecution case.
“The absence of any eye-witness to the actual act of leaving the child does not affect the case of the prosecution, as the said intention can be inferred from proved circumstances and the conduct of the accused persons,” the court said.

The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted both accused under Section 317/34 IPC.

The convicts have been directed to be heard on the quantum of sentence.