R. v. Evelyine d/o Mathias: Crim. Sass. 15-A-69, 28/6/69, Platt J.

R. v. Evelyine d/o Mathias: Crim. Sass. 15-A-69, 28/6/69, Platt J.

The accused was charged with infanticide c/s 199 P.C. in that allegedly she will-fully threw her new-born child into the latrine of her father’s house, while the balance of her mind was disturbed. Apparently no one knew of the birth of the child, who was only discovered in the latrine when it was heard crying. The accused’s parents, with whom she lived, denied any knowledge of her pregnancy or of any child-birth. Medical evidence however showed that the accused, when examined shortly after the discovery of the child, had recently delivered a child and the placenta and membranes were still in her body.

Held: (1) “Having in mind the views expressed in YOWANINA NAMAYAJA v. R. (1953) 20 EACA        204 the prosecution had to prove that the accused had caused the child’s death by a willful act which, but for the balance of her mind being disturbed would have been murder.” (2)”The prosecution has to prove that the accused had no simply abandoned the child but had intended to cause its death by throwing it into the latrine. An investigation should have been mounted to discover where the child had been born or at least to disprove that the birth had taken place involuntarily in the latrine and the child had passed into the pit being mistakenly thought to be faeces. The father had destroyed the latrine and reliance could not be placed on witnesses’ recollection of the size of the hole or whether there was any blood etc. in or within vicinity of latrine.” (3) “Altogether the evidence for the prosecution rested upon evidence which did not rule out certainly that the accused could not have been caught at the latrine for the purpose of passing faeces and involuntarily gave birth to her child. On this point the medical evidence was strongly in her favour that she could well have thought it necessary to relieve herself in the ordinary way, being unaware that her hour was nigh. It is said to be a common experience in hospital deliveries. The accused was thought to be a prima par and there was nothing to suggest that this was not the case. If that is so, then it was said that she might well have been taken off guard and delivered the child …. If then the accused gave birth involuntarily, there remains the question why she did not call out for help or report the matter. The view was accepted by the court of Appeal in Yowanina’s case that in circumstances such as these, a woman tends rather to design the abandonment of her child than its destruction, especially in cases of panic, fear or despair. It is a matter of inference from all the circumstances and possibly the prosecution in this case may have attempted to avoid this difficulty by postulating the willful act of discarding the child. But however one looks at this case, I venture to think that the evidence is too uncertain to accept the facts relied on, and the facts which are clear, do not lend support to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt on the charge as framed.” (4) Accused acquitted.