Photo by Obed Esquivel-Pickett on Unsplash
In the very center of Telangana's Suryapet district, the horrifyingly shocking April 2021 incident left the whole nation with its collective conscience shaken to the core. B. Bharathi, a 32-year-old Mekalapati Thanda woman, committed an unimaginable act: she murdered her seven-month-old infant daughter as a ritualistic human sacrifice. Goaded by the belief that committing this act would eliminate her "sarpa dosham," a supposed astrological flaw, the incident was a heart-stopping symbol of the dangerous intersection of mental illness and blind faith.
This case did not merely turn into a murder story—it turned into a legal landmark. Bharathi was given the death penalty after a prolonged and widely publicized trial in April 2025, where the court invoked the "rarest of rare" principle for the death penalty. The case pressed issues on superstition, awareness about mental health, judicial redress, and social responsibility with a sense of urgency.
On the night of April 15, 2021, Bharathi, rechristened Lasya recently, set up a horror ritual in her bedroom. With her body and the baby's painted with vermilion and turmeric, she recited mantras she had watched on YouTube clips and went on to perpetrate a gruesome act—slitting her daughter's throat and tongue.
Her logic? The assumption that the killing would satisfy supernatural forces and liberate her from sarpa dosham, an astrological curse normally associated with sins committed against snakes or sacred spaces in a previous birth. The violence of the murder was matched only by its premeditated ruthlessness. Even single in the house other than her sick father-in-law, Bharathi had confessed immediately after the crime, still dressed in clothes stained with blood.
The police arrested Bharathi on the spot. Her admission resulted in a complete investigation. Ten persons, such as family members and forensic experts, were questioned. Initially, all her husband, Krishna, and brother-in-law appeared to defend her mental state and history of ill behavior. But during the trial, they recanted their depositions, turning hostile witnesses.
Despite all this, an earlier case—a charge of attempted murder against Bharathi, who had assaulted Krishna previously—turned out to be crucial. The proofs in such a case, which were uniform, corroborated the prosecution's story. The breakthrough came in 2023 when Bharathi, who was out on bail, battered her sleeping husband with the help of a one-kilogram stone. The assault left Krishna seriously injured, and it led to a conviction in 2024 that further added momentum to the case against Bharathi and sealed her fate in the courts.
The saddest thing about the case is likely Bharathi's poor mental state. Her husband revealed that she had shown signs of paranoia, emotional instability, and intense fixations years before the murder took place. She would watch lots of videos on astrology, particularly those cautioning against sarpa dosham, and perform rituals ruthlessly.
A physician in Khammam had prescribed her some drugs, but Bharathi did not adhere to the treatment. Her increasing reliance on superstition instead of science was not so much an individual choice—it was a sign of a deeper, unspoken psychological breakdown. Mental health remains a taboo in rural and semi-urban India, more frequently pushed under the carpet in favor of spiritual remedies and rituals. Bharathi's descent into madness was not sudden; it was neglected.
The sarpa dosham superstition is prevalent in most Indian societies. The people hold the belief that they are under a curse when they have injured a snake or ruined the serpent's habitat in their previous lifetimes. They attempt to eliminate the curse by spending money on expensive pujas, pilgrimages, or, for the more serious worshippers, exorcisms and sacrifices.
To Bharathi, however, the religion was pathological, not merely cultural. Her belief that her daughter's death would purge her of karma is a chilling reminder of how far superstition can invade human sensibility. This tragedy has been studied as a case study in the deadly consequences of allowing irrational beliefs to gnaw away without any restraint.
The Indian judiciary reserves the death penalty for exceptionally heinous crimes. The Suryapet District and Sessions Court, presided over by Judge G. Anupama Chakravarthi, found Bharathi’s act to be one such case.
The judge emphasized the "calculated, premeditated" nature of the act against a defenseless child. The follow-up attack on her husband while out on bail further showcased Bharathi’s dangerous state of mind. Sympathy for her as a mother was acknowledged but overruled by the sheer brutality and irrationality of the crime. "Offense," stated Judge Chakravarthi, "shocks the collective conscience of society. No amount of psychological explanation can justify the cold-blooded murder of an infant in the name of superstition."
The media coverage was extensive. Photographic accounts of the ritualistic killing filled the news headlines, and commentary exploded on social media platforms, news channels, and community forums. While some decried the inhumanity of the crime, others focused on the shortcomings of the mental health system.
NGOs and advocacy groups responded swiftly. In Telangana and the neighboring states, there were awareness campaigns in rural areas to demystify beliefs surrounding astrology and enhance mental health literacy. Education and counseling services were highlighted by the Telangana State Women's Commission, with a focus on women in far-flung and disadvantaged regions.
India's overlap between ancient and modern science and tradition has a long tendency to create complex social processes. While medical science and technology growth have progressed by leaps and bounds in India, cultural myths and rituals still overrule vast sections of the population.
In regions like Suryapet, astrologers, godmen, and pseudo-spiritual guides often assume the roles of counselors and doctors. This overreliance becomes dangerous when mental illness is misdiagnosed as divine punishment. Bharathi’s case painfully illustrates the perils of this confusion.
To ensure that such horrors do not repeat, a comprehensive, multi-layered strategy is essential:
The ritualistic killing of a child by her mother is not just a crime—this is a wake-up call. This is a warning of what can happen when superstition replaces sanity, when mental illness goes untreated, and when society allows its most vulnerable to fall between the cracks.
While the court has delivered justice in the legal sense, the real justice will lie in systemic change. Bharathi’s case must serve as a cornerstone for reform—an end to fear-driven beliefs and a beginning for science, empathy, and education to take root. India cannot afford another Bharathi. And another innocent life must never be lost at the altar of ignorance.
References: