Solving Crime | ‘Why did you kill my mother?’: How a 3-year-old’s courtroom outburst led to a conviction in just 13 days in Karnataka

In the early hours of June 27, 2018, between 2.30 am and 3 am, the conflict reached a violent end. Sakamma was asleep on the floor with her two young sons—Dhanush, aged three-and-a-half, and Mailari, about one-and-a-half—beside her, when she was attacked with a heavy stone and sustained repeated blows to the head.

Her sister, Y Manjula, who lived nearby, was awakened by cries. She paid little attention. Moments later, Dhanush ran to her house, crying uncontrollably. Alarmed, she rushed to Sakamma’s home with a relative. They found her lying motionless, grievously injured, with a blood-stained stone nearby. Sridhara was nowhere to be seen.

Manjula, speaking to The Indian Express, recalled that Dhanush first alerted her. “He came running to my house and told me that Appa had thrown a stone at Amma. I couldn’t understand what he was saying. We rushed there and saw her in that condition. He had already left,” she claimed.

She alleged that the couple frequently argued, and Sridhara would often return home drunk and assault her. “This time, it seems to have stemmed from suspicion. He would doubt her, probably when he was intoxicated. But we never imagined it would escalate to this,” she said.

Post-mortem findings later confirmed multiple head injuries and skull fractures consistent with repeated assault, with death caused by haemorrhage due to head trauma.

Speaking to The Indian Express years later, Sakamma’s brother said, “I was called by Manjula, who informed me about the murder. It took me a few minutes to process it. We are now taking care of the two children.”

Evidence collected, witnesses come forward

The police quickly registered a case and gathered critical evidence. The stone near Sakamma’s body, the blood-soaked bedding, and the pillow were seized. Forensic testing confirmed that the blood belonged to her.

Villagers sleeping outside reported seeing Sridhara leaving the house around 3 am, ignoring attempts to speak to him. Later that day, the authorities traced Sridhara. He had allegedly consumed a small quantity of poison and was treated in the hospital before being taken into custody. During the investigation, he allegedly gave a voluntary statement and led officers to a bloodstained shirt hidden nearby, which forensic analysis confirmed contained blood matching Sakamma’s.

The post-mortem and forensic evidence established that her death was due to repeated blows from a heavy object. Circumstantial witnesses corroborated the timeline and Sridhara’s presence, including villagers who saw him fleeing the scene at the crucial hour, the police said.

The most significant part of the case was that Chitradurga Rural Inspector and Investigating Officer Shiva Kumar filed the chargesheet in just two days, on June 29, 2018. Turuvanuru Police Sub-Inspector D G Srinivas filed the First Information Report (FIR) and arrested Sridhara.

“We wanted to set the case as an example, and we got the medical and scientific evidence reports. As members of the family were prime witnesses, we recorded their statements quickly,” a police officer said.

From love to suspicion

Investigators pieced together a pattern of jealousy and control. Relatives and elders spoke of repeated accusations and harassment driven by suspicion. What happened that night, they alleged, was not a sudden outburst but the culmination of long-standing distrust.

When examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sridhara denied the allegations, providing no plausible explanation for how his wife sustained fatal injuries while he was present. The courts noted that, in cases occurring within a house, the accused must offer a credible account if they wish to displace the prosecution’s evidence—something Sridhara failed to do.

A 3.5-year-old kid’s statement stuns the court

On June 29, 2018, when the police filed the chargesheet, they also recorded Dhanush’s statement.

At trial, the sessions court first ensured that Dhanush could understand the difference between truth and falsehood by asking simple questions to build his confidence. The boy answered clearly, demonstrating he could give voluntary evidence. When examined by the public prosecutor, he identified Sridhara as the attacker. In a moment that left the courtroom visibly moved, Dhanush suddenly became emotional, raised his voice, and asked his father: “Why have you killed my mother?”

Speaking to The Indian Express, T M Shivakumar, then police inspector of Chitradurga Rural police station, recalls that when he visited the spot, Dhanush narrated the sequence of events. “I tried to strike up a conversation with Dhanush. We spoke for some time, and after gaining his trust, when I questioned him, he narrated the entire sequence of events. He was awake when Sakamma was assaulted, and every small detail was registered in his head,” Shivakumar, who is now the deputy superintendent of police of the Hiriyur sub-division in Chitradurga district, recalled.

Speaking about the swift probe, Shivakumar, who has 26 years of experience in the department, says, “Everyone supported at that point: the FSL team, the doctors who conducted the post-mortem. I visited the village for more than 5-6 days, assuring security and instilling confidence among Sakamma’s family.”

Shivakumar says that Dhanush never changed his statement, which helped the prosecution. “The sessions court judge did consider the reliability of Dhanush’s statement as he was just 3.5 years old. However, when he was consistent even during cross-examination, the credibility of the testimony was taken into account,” Shivakumar said.

The defence suggested that Dhanush had been tutored by Manjula. The court, however, rejected this, noting that the boy’s spontaneous emotional reaction, coupled with his detailed account, was natural and credible. Corroboration by other relatives who first discovered the body further strengthened his testimony.

The high court later emphasised that the child witness, though of tender age, had given reliable and untutored evidence, which could form the basis for a conviction.

A quick conviction, and an order upheld

The recovery of the bloodstained stone and shirt, coupled with forensic findings, Sridhara’s conduct that night, and Dhanush’s testimony, formed the backbone of the prosecution’s case. Sridhara denied the charges but offered no plausible explanation.

Within 13 days after the crime, the Chitradurga district principal and sessions court announced its verdict convicting Sridhara of murder and cruelty. Judge S B Vastramath, in his order on July 9, 2018, noted that Dhanush, being a minor boy aged about 3.5 years, rightly identified the accused as his father and deposed that Sridhara assaulted and killed his mother at night.

Judge Vastramath told Sridhara to be a good father to his children after he comes out of jail and not to be vengeful. A police officer said, “Sridhara was apologetic and showed remorse when the judgment was announced. He requested the judge to allow him to meet his children before going to jail. Sridhara, who was in tears, hugged his younger child while Dhanush stared at his father from a distance. After a while, when Sakamma’s family members asked him to go and meet him, he went to his father.”

Sridhara moved the Karnataka High Court and filed a criminal appeal. On February 4 this year, a bench comprising judges H P Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T turned down his appeal and upheld the lower court’s conviction.

“The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but must be considered with close scrutiny. If shown to be reliable and untutored, it can form the basis of conviction. Corroboration by circumstantial and forensic evidence reinforces the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” the order said.

At the Karnataka High Court, Additional State Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha B, who also serves as the State Legal Head and Legal Adviser to the Cyber Command, appeared for the police.

Pushpalatha told The Indian Express that the child’s testimony constituted compelling and credible evidence in the matter. She argued that all 22 prosecution witnesses had deposed consistently before the trial court, and the scientific evidence on record further corroborated the prosecution’s case.

Now, both Dhanush and his brother stay with their grandparents. “Dhanush is studying in Class 5, and his brother is in Class 3. We have never visited Sridhara after he was convicted. Even the children have never asked to see their father,” said Manjula.