Udupi: The Second Additional District and Sessions Court in Udupi has acquitted a 29-year-old woman, Haseena Sumayya Banu, of charges related to the alleged murder of her young daughter Ayesha, citing lack of conclusive evidence linking her to the crime.

The verdict, delivered on March 7, 2026, brought closure to a case that dates back to April 2020 and had raised serious allegations within a family in the coastal district.

Case background and allegations

According to the chargesheet, the incident occurred at the family’s residence in Kodavoor village near Malpe. Mohammed Siraj, who was working as a hotel manager in Haveri, had returned home a few days after the death of their two-month-old son, Mohammed Saud, on April 6, 2020.

On April 11, 2020, Ms. Banu reportedly entered the bathroom with her daughter Ayesha. A few minutes later, she brought the child out in an unconscious state. The girl was immediately rushed to KMC Hospital in Manipal, where she was declared dead on the same day.

Following the incident, Mr. Siraj lodged a complaint alleging that his wife had intentionally drowned their daughter in a bathtub. He claimed that the act was committed to prevent the child from revealing an alleged theft of gold from a neighbour’s house.

Arrest and investigation

Based on the complaint and initial medical findings, the Malpe police registered a case and launched an investigation. The medical officer’s report indicated that the cause of death was drowning in the bathtub.

Subsequently, Ms. Banu was arrested on February 17, 2021, and charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to murder.

The prosecution relied significantly on the medical report and the circumstances under which the child was found, arguing that the mother’s presence at the time of the incident pointed towards her involvement.

Court’s observations on evidence

However, while delivering the judgment, Justice Samiulla observed that the medical evidence presented in the case was not sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court noted that while medical reports can determine the cause and manner of death—such as whether it was due to drowning—they cannot, by themselves, identify the person responsible for the act.

The judge further emphasised that merely establishing that the child was in the custody of the mother at the time of the incident does not automatically prove culpability under Section 302 of the IPC.

Importantly, the court pointed out that the possibility of accidental drowning had not been conclusively ruled out during the investigation. In the absence of clear and direct evidence linking the accused to a deliberate act, the benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused.

Legal significance of the verdict

The ruling underscores a key principle of criminal jurisprudence—that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Courts require strong, corroborative evidence, particularly in serious offences such as murder.

Legal experts note that cases involving circumstantial and medical evidence must meet strict standards, ensuring that no conviction is based on assumptions or incomplete findings.

Conclusion

With the acquittal of Haseena Sumayya Banu, the court has reiterated the importance of thorough investigation and evidentiary standards in criminal cases. The verdict highlights that in the absence of conclusive proof and when alternative possibilities exist, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt under the law.