Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
Accused Claimed To Be Under Influence Of Certain Invisible Force: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of Woman Accused Of Killing Daughters
|The Supreme Court was of the view that the case falls within the third category of “culpable homicide of the third degree” as the act was committed by the accused without the intention of causing death.
The Supreme Court has converted the sentence of a woman to Part II of Section 304 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860) from that under Section 302 IPC, who was accused of killing her two minor daughters.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused mother against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which upheld her conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “Before we part with this appeal, we would like to make certain observations which in our opinion the trial courts should keep in mind while dealing with such plea taken by an accused, especially when it relates to homicide, that the accused was under the influence of certain invisible force or where the prosecution is also totally unable to explain circumstances which motivated him or her to commit the act of homicide or where the evidence on record unambiguously show totally inexplicable but highly intriguing, strange and unusual circumstances under which the crime was committed as happened in the present case.”
The Bench was of the view that the case falls within the third category of “culpable homicide of the third degree” as the act was committed by the accused without the intention of causing death, and the said culpable homicide would be covered under Part II of Section 304 IPC.
AOR S. Mahendran represented the Appellant/Accused while AOR Prashant Singh represented the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, in 2015, the Appellant-accused allegedly assaulted her two daughters aged 5 years and 3 years respectively with an iron crowbar leading to grievous injuries thereby causing the death of both the daughters. The incident was witnessed by the sister-in-law of the accused who also lived in the same house. Resultantly, a Complaint was lodged by the accused’s neighbour based on which an FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the Appeal against such an Order, the High Court concluded that the accused had assaulted her daughters with an iron pounder causing grievous injuries leading to their death. It dismissed the Appeal and hence, the accused approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… only such mental or medical condition which affects or disturbs the faculty of the person which renders him unable to know the nature of act committed or that he was doing which he did not know that it was wrong or contrary to law can be given the benefit of insanity under Section 84 IPC, and thus escape criminal liability.”
The Court remarked that merely because the Appellant could not convey herself in a legally understandable expression or idiom of her mental condition to indicate the existence of legal insanity or prove such a condition and provide evidence, such a plea could not have been completely ignored by the Trial Court or by the High Court.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances as revealed in the present case, and also keeping in mind that the incident happened in a rural setting and the appellant not being highly educated, the possibility of confusing her unstable mental condition or temporary lapse of judgmental power bordering on temporary insanity cannot be completely ruled out which the appellant attributed as coming under the influence of invisible power, for the purpose of giving a benefit of doubt about the non-existence of “intention”, it added.
The Court further observed that it is not common for rustic persons to be aware of various mental disorders/illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, that may temporarily impair the mental condition of an individual and more often than not, these disorders are unrecognised and remain untreated as it may be difficult to identify the symptoms and they do not seek proper and timely medical intervention, resulting in such medical/mental conditions which can be misinterpreted or confused with spells or influence of invisible forces based on superstitions.
“It is generally accepted in every society, especially in Indian society that one of the most sacred relationships amongst all human relationships is that of a mother and child. A mother is the life giver as well as the nurturer of a child. Since time immemorial we have not only been hearing but also observing the essence of the lines “पूत कपूत सुने बहुतेरे, माता सुनी न कुमाता” which means that a son can be a bad son, but a mother can never be a bad mother. Of course, it cannot be a legal dictum that mothers can never be an offender but that in the present case, in complete absence of motive, a mother assaulting her children of tender ages to death, that too when it is admitted that there was no animosity, but only love for her children, is contrary to lived human experiences”, it also remarked.
The Court said that in view of the plea taken by the Appellant that she was under the influence of some invisible power during commission of crime, a reasonable doubt can be said to have arisen as regards existence of intention, thus of mens rea for causing death in this case.
“… in the absence of any conclusive medical evidence with regards to the mental condition of the appellant, we are of the opinion that it may not be enough to extend the benefit of exception as encapsulated in Section 84 IPC so as to acquit the appellant in the present case”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court was of the opinion that the circumstances are enough to cast a shadow of doubt about the existence of the intention of the Appellant to commit the crime in the case.
“We are, thus, satisfied that in the present case “intention of causing death” cannot be said to have proved. … Accordingly, we convert the conviction of the appellant under Part II of Section 304 IPC from that of Section 302 IPC under which she was initially convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court which was upheld by the High Court”, it held.
Upon her conviction under Part II of Section 304 IPC, as she has already undergone more than 9 years and 10 months of sentence, the Court sentenced the Appellant to the period already undertaken by her without any fine.
“Accordingly, she shall be entitled to be released forthwith, which we direct so”, it directed.
Conclusion
The Court emphasised that if such circumstances emerge in course of the trial which remain inexplicable and bizarre as in this case, the Court, even if the accused opts to remain silent, should ask such questions to the witnesses, as may be necessary to elicit the truth by invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act, since the Court has to be satisfied that the offence alleged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt not only in respect of actus reas but also mens rea.
“This assumes great importance when the accused pleads existence of certain circumstances which are beyond his/her control and which may indicate unsoundness of mind even temporarily, incapacitating the accused to take a conscious and informed decision”, it added.
The Court concluded that if the accused at the time of commission of crime was incapable of making conscious and informed decision or was suffering from certain mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind even if temporarily, it may put a question mark on the ‘intention’ of the accused in committing such a crime, in which event, the benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused as regards proof of intention and mens rea, as it would determine the nature of conviction and sentence which may be imposed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 577)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR S. Mahendran
Respondent: AOR Prashant Singh, Advocates Prerna Dhall, Akansha Singh, Shivam Ganeshia, and Ambuj Swaroop.