Case Article: Two-Child Policy Pressure & Alleged Killing of One Twin Daughter Legal Analysis (IPC/CrPC/BNS)
Background of the Case (As Reported)
A disturbing case was reported from Maharashtra, where a man allegedly “killed” one of his twin daughters. The reason reported was linked to the two-child policy restriction for becoming a Sarpanch in some local body election rules.
This case shows a dangerous intersection of:
Political ambition.
Social pressure.
Misuse of family power.
Violence against children.
Gender discrimination / child rights violations.
Core Legal Issues
This case raises multiple serious legal questions:
A. Was it murder or culpable homicide?
If the act was intentional → Murder If death occurred due to reckless act without clear intention → Culpable homicide
But since the motive is linked to eliminating a child to meet eligibility, it strongly indicates mens rea (criminal intention).
Applicable Sections under IPC (Old Law)
Even though IPC is now replaced by BNS, IPC is still relevant for understanding and for older FIRs.
Main Offence:
IPC Section 302 – Murder
Punishment: Death or life imprisonment + fine
If proven that he intentionally caused death.
Alternative (if murder not fully proved):
IPC Section 304 – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
If defence tries to argue no intention, only knowledge.
Other Important IPC Sections:
IPC Section 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence
If the accused:
Hid the body.
Destroyed evidence.
Misled police.
Created false story.
IPC Section 203 – Giving false information:
If false information was given to police.
IPC Section 202 – Intentional omission to give information:
If family members knew but stayed silent.
IPC Section 34 – Common intention:
If the mother or any other family member participated.
IPC Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy:
If it was planned in advance with anyone.
Child Protection Angle (Very Important)
Since the victim is a minor child, multiple additional laws become relevant:
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
Section 75 – Cruelty to a child:
Punishment: Up to 3 years + fine
If cruelty, neglect, or torture is established.
POCSO Act:
Usually POCSO is for sexual offences, so it may not apply here unless any sexual abuse angle exists.
Applicable Sections under CrPC (Procedure Law)
CrPC Section 154 – FIR:
Police must register FIR in cognizable offence (murder is cognizable).
CrPC Section 156 – Police investigation:
Police can investigate without magistrate order.
CrPC Section 161 – Examination of witnesses
Statements of:
Mother.
Neighbours.
Hospital staff.
School teachers.
Relatives.
CrPC Section 164 – Statement before Magistrate: Very important if:
Mother gives confession.
Witness gives sensitive testimony.
CrPC Section 174 – Inquest report:
Mandatory in unnatural death.
CrPC Section 176 – Magisterial inquiry:
Can be ordered in suspicious death cases.
CrPC Section 173 – Charge-sheet:
After investigation, police file charge-sheet.
CrPC Section 437/439 – Bail:
Murder is non-bailable. High Court/Sessions Court decide bail.
Applicable Sections under BNS (New Law 2023, in force now)
Now the IPC is replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
BNS Section 103 – Murder:
Equivalent of IPC 302
Punishment: Death / life imprisonment + fine.
BNS Section 105 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Equivalent of IPC 304.
BNS Section 238 – Causing disappearance of evidence
Equivalent of IPC 201.
BNS Section 204 – Giving false information
Equivalent of IPC 203.
BNS Section 61 – Criminal conspiracy
Equivalent of IPC 120B.
BNS Section 3(5) – Common intention
Equivalent of IPC 34.
Most Probable Charges in This Case
If the facts match what is reported, the police can apply primary Charges:
BNS 103 (Murder).
BNS 238 (Destroying evidence).
Additional Charges:
BNS 61 (Conspiracy) (if pre-planned).
BNS 3(5) (Common intention) (if family helped).
JJ Act Section 75 (Cruelty to child).
Evidence that will decide the case
Medical Evidence.
Post-mortem report (cause of death).
Injury marks.
Time of death.
Digital Evidence:
Phone calls.
WhatsApp chats.
CCTV footage.
Location data.
Witness Evidence:
Neighbours.
Family members.
Doctor/hospital staff.
Motive:
Election eligibility due to two-child policy.
Political ambition.
Family pressure.
Legal & Social Significance
This case is important because it exposes how policy-based restrictions (like two-child norms for local elections) can indirectly lead to:
Forced sterilization pressure
Child abandonment
Female foeticide/infanticide
Extreme family violence
Even if the law aims at population control, no policy can justify violence, and criminal law overrides all political motives.
Conclusion
This case is a shocking example of how ambition mixed with patriarchal thinking can lead to a brutal crime. Under Indian criminal law, the accused can face:
Life imprisonment or death penalty for murder.
Additional punishment for evidence tampering:
Child cruelty charges.
Conspiracy/common intention charges if more people are involved.
The court will primarily rely on:
Post-mortem.
Motive.
Witness statements.
Forensic evidence.
