Promised good life in Kerala, 7-yr-old TN girl died with 57 wounds but nobody guilty

Kochi: Fifteen years ago, a quiet and heartbreaking farewell took place at a municipal crematorium in Kochi’s Aluva.
Seven-year-old Dhanalekshmi, a child from a poor village in Tamil Nadu, was cremated hundreds of kilometres away from home. Her parents, daily wage sugarcane workers Vellayan and Aandala, stood helplessly by. They did not even have enough money to take their youngest daughter's body back to their native in Cuddalore district for her final rites.

With assistance from the Kerala Police, the cremation was conducted locally. The grieving parents returned home without their child. They had sent Dhanalekshmi to Kerala, believing she would receive an education and a better future. Instead, she was finally found in a coffin in a hospital mortuary a month later.

Today, her death remains one of Kerala's most disturbing unresolved child abuse cases. While the Muvattupuzha POCSO Court, on May 29, acquitted all three primary accused – Advocate Jose Kurian of Aluva, his wife Sindhu, and the child's relative Nagappan – who were charged of physically abusing her, the haunting questions surrounding what happened to Dhanalekshmi during the final weeks of her life remain unanswered.

Dhanalekshmi's family lived in deep poverty in Karuveppilankurichi village in Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu. Court records show that while the family's three sons were sent to work at an early age to help support the household, their parents hoped for a different future for their daughters and wanted them to study.

According to the prosecution, in January 2011, shortly after the Pongal festival, Nagappan, the husband of Dhanalekshmi's father’s sister, offered what appeared to be an opportunity. He promised to take the child to Kerala, care for her and provide her with a good education. Trusting a family member, the parents allowed their seven-year-old daughter to leave with him. The prosecution alleged that the promise was never fulfilled.

Instead of being enrolled in a school in Kerala, prosecutors argued that she was taken to a house in Asokapuram, Aluva, and “sold her as a slave” to Advocate Jose Kurian and her wife Sindhu via an agent named Shaila and made her work as a domestic servant. According to the prosecution’s case, the child was forced to perform household chores, including sweeping the compound, watering plants and cleaning kennels housing large Rottweiler dogs, while suffering severe physical abuse, including pouring boiling water on the face, injuries caused by burnt cigarettes, etc.

Found unconscious in the dining room
The tragedy came to light on February 22, 2011. That afternoon, Dr Jerin Francis, a government veterinary surgeon who regularly visited the residence to treat the family's dogs, arrived for what he believed was a routine consultation. After examining the animals, he entered the house to wash his hands. Inside the dining hall, he found Dhanalekshmi lying unconscious on the floor. A strong foul odour was emanating from her body.

Alarmed by her condition, Dr Francis immediately advised those present that the child required urgent medical attention. Following his intervention, she was rushed first to Samaritan Hospital and later shifted to the MOSC Medical College Hospital in Kolenchery. Despite treatment, Dhanalekshmi died at around 1 am on February 24, 2011. Her death triggered a criminal investigation that would continue for more than a decade.

The postmortem examination conducted by Police Surgeon Dr B Krishnan revealed the horrifying extent of the child's suffering. The report documented ‘57 ante-mortem injuries’ across her body - mostly infected scald wounds consistent with cigarette burns.

The doctor noted that she died of infective complications of the injuries sustained, and the wounds were in different stages of healing, suggesting repeated episodes of trauma over a prolonged period. The medical evidence became the cornerstone of the prosecution's case.

The defence lawyer’s arguments
According to the defence counsel, the first accused, Sindhu, had fractured her right hand on February 7, 2011, and that it was highly improbable for a woman with a plastered arm to inflict the kind of repeated violence alleged by the prosecution. Advocate Jose Kurian, meanwhile, was a practising lawyer who frequently travelled for professional work.

The defence also highlighted the fact that after Dr Jerin Francis discovered the child in critical condition, Jose Kurian ensured she was taken for treatment.

The mystery lady ‘Sharadambal’
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the case was the emergence of a mysterious middle-aged Tamil woman. In a confidential statement recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Dr Jerin Francis stated that he had seen a Tamil woman inside the house on the day he found Dhanalekshmi unconscious.

The defence identified this woman as Sharadambal, allegedly a domestic worker employed at the residence. Dhanalekshmi was living under Sharadambal's direct supervision, and any abuse, if it occurred, could have happened while the child was in her care. They further claimed the woman disappeared from the hospital and returned to Tamil Nadu shortly after Dhanalekshmi's death.

However, the prosecution claimed that there was no such woman named Sharadambal who was employed there. “The woman whom Dr Jerin saw was Shaila, the agent through whom the girl was brought to Aluva. In the statements of the accused itself it was said that they summoned Shaila to the house after the girl’s condition deteriorated. However, Shaila, who was the fourth accused, was later acquitted by the Session Court and the defence claimed that the woman, ‘Sharadambal’, whom Dr.Jerin saw, never existed,” Special Public Prosecutor PR Jamuna told Onmanorama.

But despite this claim, the prosecution could neither trace nor produce her before the court. Her precise identity, role and whereabouts remain unknown to this day. That failure would later become one of the most significant factors in the court's decision.

Why the witnesses failed
The prosecution relied heavily on neighbours who claimed they had seen the child working in the compound and being mistreated. However, during cross-examination, their statements didn't hold water.

Manikyan and Sadasivan Pillai, who were neighbours, admitted to longstanding disputes with Jose Kurian and his family dating back to 2006. It also emerged that Manikyan had previously faced prosecution for causing physical injury to Jose Kurian. The court found it difficult to rely on their testimony as independent evidence.

The judge also questioned why individuals who claimed to have witnessed ongoing abuse never informed Childline, the police or any other authority while the child was alive.

Judge's scathing criticism of police
The court, chaired by Special Judge G Mahesh, accused the investigating officer, then Aluva East Inspector KB Prafulla Chandran, of what it described as 'culpable negligence'.

Under cross-examination, the officer admitted he had never properly examined the contents of Dr Jerin Francis's confidential statement mentioning the Tamil woman. The judge rejected the prosecution's alleged recovery of weapons – a fork, a firewood stick and a cane – finding serious inconsistencies in the recovery process.

According to the court, official records showed the accused were already in custody when police claimed to have recovered the items based on their confessions. The house had also been accessed by numerous members of the public before the alleged recovery. In unusually harsh language, the court observed: “It is very unfortunate that the officer of such a respectable rank went to the extent of giving evidence so rashly and negligently and thereby the entire recording of so-called confessions and the resultant recovery was useless and valueless.”

The verdict deeply upset the prosecution team. Prosecutor Jamuna argued that the court had accepted the existence of homicidal violence while refusing to hold anyone accountable for it. “What the court is stating is that we successfully proved that this was a culpable homicide. But the court states it could not connect this to the accused persons,” she said.

“The court's position is that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not properly established. The postmortem findings of 57 trauma marks cannot be erased. However, the trial court chose to place an impossible burden of proof on the state, utilising the unexplained absence of a mystery maid to completely dissolve the liability of the primary house owners,” she said, adding that they intend to challenge the verdict before the High Court.