An Indian-origin mother in New Zealand will have another opportunity to challenge her conviction for abusing her infant daughter after the country’s Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, citing significant new medical evidence.

The referral, made on 22 October 2026, follows opinions from four overseas medical specialists who have questioned aspects of the original medical conclusions that led to the woman’s conviction in 2021.

As per Awaaz, the woman, whose identity is suppressed and who is referred to as Zita, was sentenced to two years and seven months in prison after a jury found her guilty of injuring her eight-week-old daughter in Auckland in November 2018.

Her husband, referred to as Ravi, was acquitted.

The commission’s decision does not overturn Zita’s convictions or establish that she is innocent. It allows the Court of Appeal to reconsider the case in light of medical evidence that was not available to the original jury or the court during her first appeal.

It is reported that the incident occurred around Diwali in November 2018, when the couple were living apart following an argument over household responsibilities.

At 5.27 pm on 7 November, Zita sent her husband a message saying: “Baby is crying a lot, I don’t know what happened.” She sent the same message again nine minutes later.

It is further reported that the messages formed part of the prosecution’s case. Zita had reportedly made 296 calls and sent text messages to Ravi that day, including a threat to drink bleach.

After Ravi returned home, neighbours reported hearing a baby crying, a man yelling and a woman screaming.

The following morning, the couple took their daughter to a doctor, who suspected meningitis and called an ambulance.

At Auckland’s Starship Hospital, medical scans revealed bleeding around the baby’s brain, a fractured skull and multiple fractures involving her ribs and limbs.

Doctors concluded that the injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma.

During the trial, a Starship radiologist testified that imaging showed 38 rib fractures involving 18 ribs, five leg fractures, two arm fractures and five toe fractures, as well as a skull fracture.

Doctors also identified bleeding around the brain and haemorrhaging in one eye.

Some fractures appeared to be healing, suggesting the injuries had occurred at different times. Prosecutors argued that Zita had inflicted earlier injuries in October and caused more recent injuries during the Diwali period.

The prosecution also relied on her role as the baby’s principal caregiver and alleged inconsistencies in her accounts.

Zita denied harming her daughter. Her defence questioned whether an underlying bone condition had been adequately excluded.

The baby had low calcium and very low vitamin D levels. However, a Starship specialist told the court that these deficiencies could not explain the injuries.

Four medical experts gave evidence for the prosecution, while no medical expert appeared for the defence.

Zita’s first appeal was dismissed in September 2022, with the Court of Appeal describing the medical evidence of non-accidental injury as overwhelming.

It is reported that the latest review followed efforts by former race relations commissioner Joris de Bres, who supported the family and brought the case to the attention of Newsroom journalists Melanie Reid and Bonnie Sumner.

The journalists obtained the child’s medical records and scans and sought independent opinions from overseas specialists.

The experts examined possible alternative explanations for aspects of the injuries, including complications associated with the baby’s difficult birth, vitamin D deficiency and underlying bone health.

Their reports raised questions about whether some of the original medical findings could have explanations other than deliberate injury.

The case also touches on wider medical debate surrounding abusive head trauma, historically associated with shaken baby syndrome, and the extent to which medical findings can reliably distinguish inflicted injuries from other possible causes.

The new opinions do not establish that the injuries were accidental. However, they challenge aspects of the medical evidence central to the prosecution’s case.

Acting Chief Commissioner Paula Rose said significant expert evidence had emerged that was unavailable to the original jury and the Court of Appeal.

The commission considered that the interests of justice required the convictions to be reconsidered.

Health New Zealand has previously said Starship stands by the expertise of its child-protection team.

The case has had profound consequences for the family.

Their daughter was removed from their care following the hospital investigation and subsequently lived in four foster homes.

Ravi was acquitted but was initially unable to secure custody of the child. The parents were also required to live separately under bail conditions.

In 2019, Zita’s father died in India, but she could not attend his funeral because her passport was held by the court.

The couple also terminated a second pregnancy that year, later telling RNZ they feared authorities would remove another child.

Zita had arrived in New Zealand in 2014, completed a business qualification and worked as a restaurant manager. Ravi joined her after their marriage in India.

Following her release from prison, Zita faced deportation proceedings, while Ravi’s immigration status also remained uncertain.

Her deportation was cancelled in early 2025 following intervention by Associate Immigration Minister Chris Penk. She obtained a work visa in March 2025 but struggled to find employment because of her conviction.

In April 2025, the Family Court returned custody of their daughter, who was then six years old.

Despite regaining custody, the family continued to face difficulties rebuilding their lives. At the time of an RNZ interview, Zita was living with her brother, while Ravi and their daughter stayed with relatives.

The parents also spoke about the impact of their separation on their daughter’s connection with Indian culture and family traditions.

The Court of Appeal will now consider the new medical opinions alongside the evidence presented at the original trial.

The referral represents a significant development in a case that has kept the family apart for years, but it does not guarantee that the convictions will be overturned.

For Zita, the legal process has affected her freedom, employment prospects, immigration status and ability to live with her husband and daughter.

Speaking to RNZ in June 2025, she described her hopes for the future. “I’m not planning much because the last time I did, things didn’t end well,” she said.

“My only dream is to live with my husband and daughter as a family.”

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.