Kerala High Court
Vijayamma vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
: 2024:KER:76518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TH
THURSDAY, THE 17
DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA,
1946
CRL.A NO. 797 OF 2018
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
IN
SC
NO.452
OF
2016
DT.10.05.2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT
/ACCUSED:
IJAYAMMA,AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.K.V.RAJU,
V
KALATHIL HOUSE, KAREEMANDOM BHAGOM,
AYMANAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM(FLAT NO.17A/103,
THANE DISTRICT, VIHAR WEST.P.O,
BOMBAY UNITECH'S WEST END,MAHARASHTRA.
BY ADV SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENT/
COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
S
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
SMT. NEEMA T.V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIS
T CRIMINAL
APPEAL
HAVING
COME
UP
FOR
FINAL
HEARING
ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
: 2024:KER:76518
'CR'
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan. J.
The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.452 of 2016 on the file of the
AdditionalSessionsJudge-V,Kottayam. Intheaforesaidcase,shewascharged
under Section 302 of the IPC for committing nepoticide. By judgment dated
10.05.2018, she was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge and was
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay afineof
Rs.1 lakh under Section 302 of theIPCwithadefaultclause. Challengingthe
judgement, conviction and sentence, this appealispreferredunderSection374
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The summary of the prosecution's version,asreflectedintherecords,
is as follows:
2. Kamalakshi (PW1) and Raghavan (PW2) are octogenarians with
fourchildren.Theireldestdaughter,Vijayamma,istheaccusedinthiscase.The
nextchildisadaughternamedShyla,followedbyShaji(PW4),thefatherofthe
deceased, Rahul, a bright 12-year-old boy. Their youngest son by name is
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
: 2024:KER:76518
Suresh.Vijayammaworkedasanurseforoverthreedecades.Sheismarriedto
Rajuandhasthreechildren,whoareallemployed.Shaji,agraphicdesigner,was
working inDubaiandhehadastrainedrelationshipwithBindu(PW4),hiswife.
Till January 2012, their son, Rahul, was with ShajiinDubai.However,hisVISA
gotcancelledandhehadtoreturnbacktoIndia.Rahulwasaccordinglyenrolled
in a school at Kaipuzha and had been under the care of his grandparents.
3. On 2/9/2013, at approximately 5 p.m., Vijayamma arrived from
Bombay, where she was then working, at her parental home. She approached
herfather,Raghavan,andrequestedRs.15lakhs.Raghavaninformedherthathe
has already set apart properties for his two daughters and suggested that she
was free to sell her share and secure the amount. Vijayamma had bought
chocolates from the shop of Geetha (PW11) to give it to Rahul. That evening,
she stayed in the room where the grandmother usually slept with Rahul,while
Raghavan, aswashishabit,sleptonacotinthesit-out.Thedooroftheroom,
where Vijayamma and Rahul slept, was locked from the inside by Rahul.
4. At around 3 a.m., whenKamalakshiwokeuptoquenchherthirst,
she found that the lights were switched on and heard Vijayamma speaking to
someone. When asked what had happened, Vijayamma stated that she had
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :4
: 2024:KER:76518
murdered Rahul and was reporting the incident to the police. According to the
prosecution,Vijayammastrangledtheboywithherpyjamastringwhileheslept.
Though no specific motive is alleged in the court charge, the attempt of the
prosecution by letting in evidencewastosetupamotivethattheaccusedwas
veryclosetoShajiandshewasagainsthimreunitingwithBindu.Herfatherhad
also acceded to the request of Bindu to build a house near the family house
whilerefusingherrequestforaloan.ThismadehervengefultowardsBinduand
she felt that if Rahul is eliminated, the prospects of Shaji and Bindu reuniting
would be a remote possibility.
Registration of the Crime:
5. The sequence ofeventsisthatimmediatelyafterstranglingRahul,
Vijayammadialledthepoliceandinformedthemabouttheincidentaswellasthe
location. The call was received byPW16,theGDincharge,oftheEttumanoor
Police Station. He immediately informed PW3, who was on patrol duty. PW3
reachedtheplaceandfoundthatPW2waslyingoutside.PW2tooktheofficerin
andhefoundVijayammalyingonthebedinapronepositionbythesideofthe
boy. He locked the bedroom and posted Manoj Kumar (PW14), a Civil Police
Officer,onguardduty.Thechildaswellastheaccusedweretakeninthejeepto
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :5
: 2024:KER:76518
the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The child was examined by theDoctor
and he was declared dead. Vijayamma was also examined by the Doctor. The
DutyMedicalOfficerintheCasualtyDepartmentoftheMedicalCollegeexamined
Vijayamma and thereafter, she was produced before the Gandhi Nagar Police
StationalongwithExt.P1report.Onthebasisofthesaidreport,Ext.P9FIRwas
registeredon03.09.2013at6a.m.byPW19,theSubInspectorofPolice,Gandhi
Nagar Police Station as Crime No. 811 of 2013 under Section 302 of the IPC.
Investigation:
6. The investigation was taken overbyPW20,theCircleInspectorof
Police, Kottayam East Police Station. He arrested the accused at 9 a.m. on
03.09.2013 and she was keptundersurveillance. Heconductedtheinqueston
thebodyandpreparedExt.P2inquestreport.Traceevidencewascollectedfrom
the hands and the neck of the deceased using cellophane tapes. The clothes
wornbythedeceasedandthebedsheetusedtocoverthebodywereseized. He
went to theplaceofoccurrenceandinspectedtheroomwherethemurderwas
committed. A pair of rubber sandals andaPyjamawithnostringwereseized.
The officersoughttheassistanceoftheScientificexperttocollectsamples. He
produced the accused before the court alongwithExt.P11medicalexamination
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :6
: 2024:KER:76518
report. The samples seized were forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab and
reportswereobtained.Theaccusedwastakeninpolicecustodyfrom12.30p.m.
on 09.09.2013 till 12.30 p.m on 11.09.2013 and she was interrogated.
7. Whileshewasinjudicialcustody,thehusbandoftheaccusedfiled
an application before the learned Magistrate requesting that she be provided
medicine for her mental ailments. However, no medicines were found in the
personal belongings of the accused nor did the husband produce any records
showingthattheaccusedwasundergoingtreatmentformentalailmentssoasto
raise a defence of legal insanity. In thebailapplicationfiledbytheaccused,a
contentionwastakenthattheaccusedwassufferingfrommentalailmentsfrom
1985 onwards. Under the said circumstances, Ext.P15 application was filed on
15.10.2013 seeking to obtain a report as regards the mental status of the
accused from the Psychiatry Department of the Medical College Hospital,
Kottayam. The said application was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The
accused was monitored in the Psychiatry Department of the Medical College
Hospital by PW15, the Associate Professor, PsychiatryDepartment,Government
Medical CollegeHospital,Kottayam. TheHeadoftheDepartmentofPsychiatry,
MCHKottayam,wasexaminedasDW1. InthereportsubmittedbyPW15,after
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :7
: 2024:KER:76518
observingandevaluatingtheaccusedfrom28.10.2013to5.11.2013asimpatient
and after interacting with her husband, Raju, it is stated that the accusedwas
notsufferingfromanypsychoticdisorderandthatsheisfittostandtrial. After
completing the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Ettumanoor.
Committal:
8. Afterfollowingtheprocedure,thecasewascommittedtotheCourt
of Session. The case was later made over to the Additional Sessions Judgefor
trial and disposal.
The evidence let in:
9. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 20 to prove its case and
throughthem,Exts.P1toP17wereexhibitedandmarked.MaterialObjectswere
produced andidentifiedasMOs1to7series.Afterthecloseoftheprosecution
evidence,theincriminatingmaterialswereputtotheaccusedunderSection313
of the Cr.P.C. She denied the circumstances brought out against her and
maintained her innocence. Exts.D1 to D7(a) Case Diary contradictions were
broughtoutfromtheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesses. Onfindingthatthe
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :8
: 2024:KER:76518
accused could not beacquittedunderSection232oftheCr.P.C.,shewascalled
upon to enter her defence. On her side, DWs 1 to 5 were examined.
The findings of the Trial Court:
10. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the entire evidence,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved by
examining PWs 1 and 2 that Rahul was sleeping with Vijayamma in a locked
room before he was found dead. The evidence of PWs1to3,16,19,and20
wasalsoreliedupontoconcludethatVijayammaherselfhadinformedthepolice
of thefactthatshehadputanendtothelifeofthechild. Theuncontroverted
testimony of PWs 1 and 7 were also relied upon to hold that Vijayamma had
confessed in their presence that it was at her hands that the deceased was
murdered. MO1 string found beneath the cot on which the accused and the
deceased were lying was foundtobetakenoutfromthePyjamaownedbythe
accused and which was seized as part of MO6 series. Ext.P13reportfromthe
ForensicScienceLabwasrelieduponasitstatedinunmistakabletermsthatthe
fibers of MO1 string are identical to the fibers collected from the neck of the
deceased and the palms of the accused. It was held that the above
circumstances conclusively proved thatitwastheaccusedwhohadperpetrated
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :9
: 2024:KER:76518
themurderofthechildandnoneelse. TheevidenceofPWs4and5andthatof
the parents were relied upon to conclude that the prosecution successfully
discharged to prove the mens rea on the part of the accusedtoputanendto
thelifeofthechild. Thedefenceofinsanitytakenbytheaccusedwasheldnot
sufficiently proven. Though the medicalrecordsandthetestimoniesofDWs3,
4,and5suggestedthattheaccusedhadsymptomsofdepression,thecourtheld
thattherewerenomaterialstosuggestthattheaccusedwassufferingfromany
seriousmentaldisorderthatshroudedherreasoningandthatshewascapableof
understanding the consequence of her actions.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
11. Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, raised the following contentions:
a) Thefailureoftheprosecutiontoproveanymotiveisfatal. Noneof
thewitnesseshaveanycasethattheaccusedhadanygrudgeoranimosityeither
towards the child or to any other person to commit the murder. In a case
wherein, the plea of insanity has been taken and the victim is a near relative,
motive assumes importance.
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
0: 2024:KER:76518
b) It is argued that it is imperative to take into consideration the
circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following thecrime.
The fact that the accused herself intimated the police andmadenoattemptto
hide herself or to destroy the evidence and thefactthatshedidnotmakeany
attempttofleefromthescenearealltelltalesignstoconcludethattheaccused
wasincapableofunderstandingthenatureofheractionsduetounsoundnessof
mind. Tosubstantiatehiscontention,relianceisplacedonSurendraMishrav.
State of Jharkhand1.
c) The evidence let in by DWs 3 to 5 and Exts.D15, 17, and 19
medical records indicated thatVijayammahadsymptomsofdepressionandshe
was prescribed medications which are typically used forpatientswithpsychotic
disorders.
d) The evidence let inbyPW3revealsthattheaccusedwastakento
the Medical College hospital and was seen by a Doctor immediately after the
incident. Thereafter, the report issued by the Doctor was producedalongwith
Ext.P1 report before the Station House Officer of the Gandhi Nagar Police
Station. However, the Medical certificate has not been produced by the
1
[(2011) 11 SCC 495]
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
1: 2024:KER:76518
investigatingagencyalongwiththefinalreport.Thesuppressionoftheaforesaid
document by the investigating agency is fatal.
e) Relying on the principles of law laid down in Reji Thomas @
Vayalar v. State of Kerala2, it is argued that though a special burden iscast
upon the accused to make out his defence of insanity if the materials placed
beforethecourtintheformoforalanddocumentaryevidencesatisfiesthetest
of a prudent man,theaccusedwillhavetobetreatedashavingdischargedhis
burden.
Submissions on behalf of State:
12. Smt. Neema K.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted
thattheassailantwastheaccusedandnoneotherhasbeenconvincinglyproved
by the evidence of PWs 1 and2andExt.P17Forensicreport. Areadingofthe
testimony of the witnesses in its entirety would reveal that though the motive
maynotbeveryapparent,thefactremainsthattheactionsoftheaccusedwere
drivenbyacalculateddesiretopreventherbrotherShajifromreunitingwithhis
wife Bindu. IthascomeoutfromtheevidencethatVijayammadespisedBindu
2
[2023 KHC 556]
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
2: 2024:KER:76518
forvariousreasons. ItisfurthersubmittedthatthebehaviourofVijayammawas
rational before and after the incident and all thewitnessesstatedthatshehad
behaved in a normal manner and engaged in normal conversations. She also
pointed out that the appellant has not adduced any evidencetoshowthatshe
was indeed suffering from any mental disorder of such a nature that she was
incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reasonofunsoundnessofmind.
RelyingontheprincipleslaiddowninRejiThomas(supra),itisurgedthatitis
only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs thecognitivefacultiesofthe
mindcanbereckonedasagroundforexemptionfromcriminalresponsibility. It
is further urged that the mere absence of a motive for the commission of a
crime,howeveratrociousitmaybe,cannotintheabsenceofapleaandproofof
legal insanity, bring the case within the exception under Section84oftheIPC.
Much reliance is placed on the observations in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakkar v. State of Gujarat3 and in Riyas v. State of Kerala4 to
substantiate her contentions.
Our Evaluation:
13. Was the death of Rahul, a case of homicide by strangulation?
3
[ AIR 1964 SC 1563]
4
[2024:KER:6052]
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
3: 2024:KER:76518
Ext.P8 is the postmortem report prepared by PW18, the Assistant Police
Surgeon in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital,
Kottayam. Henotedapressureabrasion29.5cmslightlyobliqueallaroundthe
neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. He also noted 5 other abrasions on the
body of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was due to
strangulation. Thisfindingisnotdisputedbythedefence. Hence,itcanbeheld
without any manner of doubt that Rahul had died of strangulation.
14. Whether the prosecution has proved that it was the accusedwho
had committed the murder of Rahul by strangulation?
14.1. Itwouldbeworthwhiletomentionatthisjuncturethattheaccused
does not dispute that the death of Rahul may have happened at her hands.
However, her primary contention is that, at the time of the commission of the
abominable act, she was unable to understandthenatureofheractionsorthe
consequences thereof due to unsoundness ofmind.Inordertoproperlyassess
this defence, we are of the view that it is crucial to evaluate the testimony of
certain prosecution witnesses to ascertain the circumstancesthatmayhaveled
the accused to commit the crime. Moreover, a properappraisaloftheevidence
will aid in determining whethertheclaimofunsoundnessofmindraisedbythe
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
4: 2024:KER:76518
accused can be legally sustained.
14.2. PW1, the mother of the accused, wasagedabout85yearsatthe
timeoftenderingevidence.Shestatedthatherdaughter,theaccused,hadbeen
adutifulandresponsibleindividualfromaveryyoungage.Evenasasmallchild,
she took care of her siblings in the absence of their parents and helped her
mother with household chores. According to PW1, the accused was overly
affectionatetowardshersiblings,andtheparentsbelievedthatherlife'smission
was to ensure her younger siblings were well-educated and reached good
positionsinlife.Afterherprimaryeducation,theaccusedwenttoDelhiwithher
friends to pursue nursing studiesand,aftercompletinghercourse,remainedin
Delhi, after securing employment at a hospital. She subsequently brought her
youngersisterandbrotherstoDelhiandensuredthattheyalsocompletedtheir
education.PW1statedthatitwasaftermuchreluctancethattheaccusedagreed
tomarryRaju,arelative.Theeffortsoftheaccusedborefruitandherbrothers,
after completing their education, secured employment in the Middle East.
14.3. In the meanwhile, the accused gave birth to three children. PW1
emphasised that Vijayamma was veryparticularthatShajimarryasuitablegirl.
Bindu was working as a Staff Nurse at the Medical College Hospital when the
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
5: 2024:KER:76518
proposalforhermarriagetoShajiwasinitiated.ThemarriagebetweenShajiand
Bindu was solemnised on 14th November 2000, and a week later, Shaji went
abroad. Subsequently, Bindu also joined him. On 8th March 2002, their child,
Rahul, was born while Shaji was still abroad. Later,whileShajiandBinduwere
abroad, Bindu allegedly attempted suicide. Immediately after this incident, she
returnedtohernativeplace.AfterBindu'sreturn,VijayammajoinedShajiabroad
and stayed together until 2011. Atthattime,Shaji'svisawascancelled,andhe
had to return to India. PW1 asserted that Vijayamma had no mental health
issuesandwasnotonanymedication.ShedescribedVijayammaasveryloving,
particularly towards Shaji and Rahul.
14.4. Referring to the incident, PW1 testified that on 2nd September
2013, at about 5:00 p.m., Vijayammaarrivedatherhouseinanauto-rickshaw.
Rahulwasplayingoutsidewhenshecame.Vijayammagavehimachocolateand
behaved lovingly towards the child. Later in the evening, PW1's husband,
Raghavan, went to sleep in the sit-out. Vijayamma asked her father for some
money to cover her son's educational expenses. Her father responded that he
hadnomoneytospareandtoldherthatshewasfreetodisposeoftheproperty
set apart to his daughters which included the accused. The child, in the
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
6: 2024:KER:76518
meanwhile, had expressed his desire to sleep with Vijayamma.
14.5. PW1statedthatshewatchedTVwithRahulwhileVijayammawent
to sleep in the eastern room. Throughout the evening,Vijayammawouldcome
out intermittently, asking Rahul about the TV programs they were watching.
However, Rahul told her that PW1 may not understand English and continued
watching the program. Eventually, Rahul joined Vijayamma in the bedroom
where PW1 usually slept with him, and they locked the door from the inside.
14.6. At around 3:00 a.m., PW1 wokeuptofindthelightsinthedining
room and bedroom switched on and overheard Vijayammatalkingtosomeone.
When PW1 inquired, Vijayamma said she was going to the Ettumanoor Court.
PW1, finding this unusual, asked why shewasmakingsuchoddstatements,to
which Vijayamma replied that she was not crazyandthatshehadkilledRahul.
VijayammarepeatedthatshehadkilledRahul.Shocked,PW1rushedtocheckon
Rahulandfoundhimlyingface-upwithhiseyesopen.Sheimmediatelyinformed
PW2,whohadbeensleepinginthesit-out.ThoughPW1wascertainthatRahul
was no longer alive, Raghavan insisted on taking the child to the hospital and
went to call his nephew, who lived nearby. Shethenspokeaboutthearrivalof
the police and the things that had transpired thereafter.
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
7: 2024:KER:76518
14.7. PW2, Raghavan, deposed that he became aware of the incident
only when PW1cametothesit-outandinformedhimoftheincident.Hefound
Vijayammalyingonthebed,facedownwithherheadcoveredbyasheet.PW2
also stated that it was Vijayamma who had called the policetoinformthemof
the crime. He mentioned that he did not know what had led Vijayamma to
commitsuchaheinousact.PW2furthertestifiedthatVijayammahadaskedhim
foraloanofRs.15lakhs,butherefusedandtoldhershecouldselltheproperty
allotted to her. He also mentioned that Bindu had soughthispermissiontolive
near his house and he had advised her to build a separate residence on the
property allocated to them, situated near the family property. He added that
Vijayamma was aware of this offer made by him to Bindu.
14.8. PW3 is the Additional Sub Inspector of Police Ettumanoor Police
Station. He stated that on 2.9.2013, he was on emergency duty. On being
informedabouttheincidentbytheGDchargeatabout3.40pm,hereachedthe
residenceofPW1and2andenquiredaboutVijayamma,whohadmadethecall
to the police station.PW2wassittingoutsideandhetooktheofficerinside.He
foundtheboylyingfaceuponthebed.Theaccusedwasalsolyingfacedownon
the same bed. When the officercalledher,shestoodupandinformedthatshe
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
8: 2024:KER:76518
had called the police and that she had murdered the child. By the time PW3
arrived, several neighbours had gathered at the house. The boy's body was
takentothehospital,andwiththeassistanceofPW7Preethi,PW3escortedthe
accusedtoboardthepolicejeep.HethenlockedtheroomandpostedPW14,a
Civil Police Officer,onguarddutyatthescene.Theaccusedwassubjectedtoa
medicalexaminationatthecasualtydepartmentoftheMedicalCollegeHospital,
Kottayam, and later produced at the Gandhinagar police station. During
cross-examination, PW3 stated that he had the accused undergo a medical
examinationtoassessherphysicalandmentalconditionbeforeproducingherat
the Gandhinagar police station. The defence has a contention that though an
assessment was made by the Casualty Medical Officer and the said reportwas
submittedalongwithExt.P1reportbeforethePoliceStation,nosuchreporthas
been placed along with the final report. This issue can be dealt withatalater
stage.
14.9. PW4 is the mother of the Child. She would narrate the entire
sequence of events from her marriage to the minor disputes between her and
herhusbandleadingtotheirstayingseparateaftertheincidentwhichtookplace
in2009.ShestatedthatoncompletionoftheIVstandard,thechildwasbrought
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :1
9: 2024:KER:76518
toIndiaandadmissionwassecuredinaSchoolneartotheparentalhomeofthe
father. She stated that one month prior to the incident she hadoccasiontogo
andmeettheChild.ShealsostatedthatPW2offeredtopermithertoconstruct
a homeneartohisproperty.Shestatedthattheaccusedwasoverlypossessive
towards her husband and she did not like the offer made by herfather-in-law.
She also stated that Vijayamma was not quite happywithherforinsistingthat
PW4 be granted herrightsinthefamily.ShestatedthatVijayammafearedthat
she would miss out on financial help from Shaji and her parents if Shaji and
Binduweretolivetogether.Whenhercasediarystatementswereputtoherand
she was asked whether such a statement was made, she stated thatshedoes
notremember.ThoseportionsweremarkedasExhibitD1toD4. Weareofthe
view that nothing turns out of those statements.
14.10. PW5 is Shaji, the father of the deceased Rahul. After
speakingaboutthemarriagebetweenhimandBindu,hesaidthatthechildwas
with him in Dubai till 12 January 2012. His VISA got cancelled and he had to
return back to India. Rahul Joined a School at Kaipuzha. He stated that the
accusedhadworkedasanurseintheAllIndiaInstituteofMedicalSciencesand
in Saudi Arabia. She had also worked in Mumbai. She had stayed with PW1 in
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
0: 2024:KER:76518
Dubai till 2011. Though initially he felt that the relationship between his sister
and Bindu was cordial, in the year 2011, he realised that Vijayamma nursed
some grievances against his wife. Though he had some issues with hiswife,it
was not so serious. Vijayamma had told him that she felt bad as Shaji was
stayingalone.HealsofeltthatVijayammadidnotliketheprospectsofhimand
hiswifestayingtogether.Accordingtohim,hefeltthatVijayammawashavinga
professionaljealousytowardshiswife,andthathadpromptedhertocommitthe
grievous crime. Vijayamma had three children, out of which one was aDoctor,
theotheranEngineerandthethirdwasworkinginMumbaiaftercompletinghis
Degree. In cross-examination, he stated that he hadsettledallhisissueswith
his wife and they were staying together. Exts. D5 to D7 contradictions were
brought out while cross-examining PW5. When a specific question was put to
Shaji as to whether Vijayamma was suffering from any mental ailments, he
denied the same.
14.11. PW7isaneighbourandarelativeofPW2. Shewaspresent
when the police had arrived at the spot. It was with her assistance that the
accused was taken from the sceneofoccurrence.Shewasinitiallytakentothe
hospitalandthentothepolicestation.PW7overheardVijayammastatingtothe
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
1: 2024:KER:76518
police that it was she who had killed the boy.
14.12. PW10 is the autorickshaw driver, who took the accused to
thehouseandPW11isashopowner,fromwhoseshopchocolatewaspurchased
by the accused. PW13 is the Scientific Assistant who collected cellophane
pressings from the palms of the accused andMO1 pyjamastring.PW16isthe
Associate Professor, Psychiatry Department, Government Medical College,
Kottayam. He had examined the accused as per the order of the Court and
issued Ext.P6 report stating that the accused was not suffering from any
psychotic disorder as on the date of report and that she was fit to stand trial.
PW18 is the Police Surgeon who conducted autopsy and issued Ext.P8
Postmortem Certificate. PW19 is the officer who recorded the FIRandPW20is
the officer who conducted the investigation.
14.13. On an evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses,itcanverywellbeseenthatthefactthatRahulhaddiedatthehands
oftheaccusedwhiletheyweresleepinginthesameroomhasbeensuccessfully
proven by the prosecution. PWs1 and 7 had stated that the accused had
confessed in their presence that it was she who had committed the murder.
Ext.P13 report reveals that the fibre of MO1 string is identical to the fibres
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
2: 2024:KER:76518
collectedfromtheneckofthedeceasedandfromthepalmsoftheaccused.We
areintheabovecircumstancesconvincedthatnoneofthecontentionsadvanced
bytheappellantwillcreateanydoubtinthecaseoftheprosecutionthatitwas
the accused who had committed the murder of the deceased.
15. Whether the failure oftheprosecutiontoascribeadefinitemotive
is fatal?
15.1 The cross-examination of PWs1,2,4and5wouldrevealthatthe
attempt of the defence was to bring out that the accused did not have any
motive to take out the life of her nephew. According to them, it can only be
deducedthatonlyapersonwhoissufferingfromunsoundnessofmindwillcarry
outsuchagruesomecrime.ItwouldbeprofitabletobearinmindthattheApex
Court in Bapu Alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan5 byrelyingonthe
principles laid down in SheralliWaliMohammedv.StateofMaharashtra6
had held that a mere absence of motive for a crime, howeveratrociousitmay
be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case
within Section 84 of the IPC.
5
(2007) 8 SCC 66
6
(1973) 4 SCC 79
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
3: 2024:KER:76518
15.2. The learnedSessionsJudge,afterappreciatingtheentireevidence
and the demeanor of the witnesses and the accused, has observed that the
accused,whoresidesinBombay,cametoherparentalhomeforthepurposeof
securing her father's assent to sell some shares and to amass a sum of Rs.15
lakhsfortheneedsofherchildren.TheevidenceofPWs1and2revealsthatthe
accused spoke with her father and he declined giving his own reasons. He
suggestedthathehadnoobjectiontotheappellantsellingthepropertythathad
been set apart for her share. This conversation had occurred prior to the
members of the household going to bed withthechild.Itcanbededucedthat
theaccusedcouldnothavebeenverymuchpleasedwithherfatherforrefusing
herrequest.IthascomeoutfromtheevidenceofPWs1,2,4,and5thatwhen
his daughter-in-law had requested to stay near the school where her son was
pursuinghiseducation,PW2suggestedthatshecouldconstructahousenearhis
propertyandlivethere.Thewitnessesstatedthattheaccusedwasawareofthis
assurance given by PW2 to live in a house to be builtonhisproperty,closeto
the family home. It has come out from the evidence of PW5 that the accused
had professional jealousy towards Bindu and that she had on more than one
occasionsuggestedtohimtoseverthetie.WhileBinduwasnotaround,shehad
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
4: 2024:KER:76518
even stayed abroad with PW5 and the child overseas. It isthusquiteprobable
that on being refused financial assistance by PW2, and on being aware of the
willingness of her father to provide property tohisdaughter-in-law,withwhom
theaccusedhadastrainedrelationship,shefeltbetrayed.Thefeelingofbetrayal
would have weighed down on her particularly when PW4haddonenothingfor
the family whereas the accused being a responsible daughter had spent her
wholelifeforthewelfareofherfamilybytakingcareofhersiblingssothatthey
reach a good position in life. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge,
though such an allegation has not been raised in the charge suchfeelingsand
responses can be inferred from the circumstances, as they are in tune with
rational human behaviour. Upon analysing these events, it becomes apparent
thatbeforegoingtobed,theaccusedwaslikelyexperiencingconsiderablestress
duetotheseconflictingemotions.Thesecircumstancescouldhavecontributedto
forming the alleged motive in the accused's mind--that eliminating the child
might prevent its mother from tryingtoresidenearthefamilypropertyorfrom
reunitingwithherhusband,orthattheaccusedcouldcontinuereceivingfinancial
assistance from her brother and father without interferencefromthechildwho
was having a pride of place in the minds of the aged grandparents.
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
5: 2024:KER:76518
16. Whetherthedefenceoflegalinsanityraisedbytheaccusedcanbe
accepted to relieve her from criminal liability?
16.1 Now we come to the defence of insanity pleaded by the accused
beforeus.AsheldinSudhakaranv.StateofKerala7,thedefenceofinsanity
has been well-known in the English legal system for many centuries. In the
earliertimes,itwasusuallyadvancedasajustificationforseekingpardon.Over
a period of time, it was used as a complete defence to criminal liability in
offencesinvolvingmensrea.Itisalsoacceptedthatinsanityinmedicaltermsis
distinguishablefromlegalinsanity.Section84ofthePenalCode,1860recognises
the defence of insanity. It says that nothing is an offence which is done by a
person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law. A bare perusal of the aforesaid section would show
that in order to succeed, the appellant would have to prove that by reason of
unsoundness of mind, she was incapable of knowing the nature of the act
committed by her. In the alternatecase,shewouldhavetoprovethatshewas
incapable of knowing that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
7
(2010) 10 SCC 582
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
6: 2024:KER:76518
16.2. The accused relies on the evidence of PW15 and DWs 1 to 5, to
substantiate her contention that she is suffering from unsoundness of mind.
16.3 Beforewedealwiththeevidenceofthemedicalwitnessesandthe
findings arrived at by the Trial Court, it would be appropriate to notice the
relevantaspectsofthelawofthepleaofinsanity.TheApexCourtinDahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat8, the much cited judgement on
the subject, after referring to Section 299 and Section 84 of theIndian Penal
Code, 1860, Sections 4, 101, and 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, had lucidly
elucidated the principles by holding as under:
5..................It is a fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and,
therefore, theburdenliesontheprosecutiontoprovetheguiltofthe
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a
case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
accusedcauseddeathwiththerequisiteintentiondescribedinSection
299 of theIndianPenalCode.Thisgeneralburdennevershiftsandit
alwaysrestsontheprosecution.But,asSection84oftheIndianPenal
Codeprovidesthatnothingisanoffenceiftheaccusedatthetimeof
doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of
8
1964 SCC OnLine SC 20
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
7: 2024:KER:76518
knowingthenatureofhisactorwhathewasdoingwaseitherwrong
or contrary to law.Thisbeinganexception,underSection105ofthe
Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances
bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused; and
the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under
Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall
presume" in Section 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of
such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters
before it,itbelievesthatsaidcircumstancesexistedortheirexistence
wassoprobablethataprudentmanought,underthecircumstancesof
theparticularcase,toactuponthesuppositionthattheydidexist.To
put it in other words,theaccusedwillhavetorebutthepresumption
that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material beforethe
court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said
circumstances so probable that aprudentmanwouldactuponthem.
The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the
material placed before the court such, as, oral and documentary
evidence,presumptions,admissionsoreventheprosecutionevidence,
satisfies the test of "prudent man", the accused will have discharged
hisburden.Theevidencesoplacedmaynotbesufficienttodischarge
the burden under Section 105oftheEvidenceAct,butitmayraisea
reasonabledoubtinthemindofajudgeasregardsoneorotherofthe
necessaryingredientsoftheoffenceitself.Itmay,forinstance,raisea
reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether theaccusedhad
the requisite intention laid down in Section 299 of the Indian Penal
Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the
accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
8: 2024:KER:76518
conclusivelytheguiltoftheaccused.Thereisnoconflictbetweenthe
general burden, which is always on the prosecution andwhichnever
shifts, and the special burden that rests on theaccusedtomakeout
his defence of insanity.
xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx
7.Thedoctrineofburdenofproofinthecontextofthepleaof
insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) The
prosecutionmustprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthattheaccusedhad
committedtheoffencewiththerequisitemensrea,andtheburdenof
provingthatalwaysrestsontheprosecutionfromthebeginningtothe
endofthetrial.(2)Thereisarebuttablepresumptionthattheaccused
wasnotinsane,whenhecommittedthecrime,inthesenselaiddown
by Section84oftheIndianPenalCode:theaccusedmayrebutitby
placingbeforethecourtalltherelevantevidenceoral,documentaryor
circumstantial,buttheburdenofproofuponhimisnohigherthanthat
restsuponapartytocivilproceedings.(3)Eveniftheaccusedwasnot
able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he
committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the
accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the
mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the
offence, includingmensreaoftheaccusedandinthatcasethecourt
wouldbeentitledtoacquittheaccusedonthegroundthatthegeneral
burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :2
9: 2024:KER:76518
16.4. InPrakashNayiv.StateofGoa9,theApexCourt,afterreferring
to the past precedents, had laid down the principles as under:
3. ........................Section 84 IPC recognises only an act
whichcouldnotbetermedasanoffence.Itstartswiththewords
"nothing is an offence". The saidwordsareaclearindicationof
the intendment behindthislaudableprovision.Suchanactshall
emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore,theexistenceofan
unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the
provision.Amereunsoundmindpersewouldnotsuffice,andit
should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act.
Suchapersonisincapableofknowingthenatureofthesaidact.
Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act
committed is eitherwrongorcontrarytolaw.Needlesstostate,
the element of incapacityemergingfromanunsoundmindshall
be present at the time of commission.
4. The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound
mind. It is a very broad provision relatabletotheincapacity,as
aforesaid. The test is from the point of viewofaprudentman.
Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean
unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person
suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act,
however, the test is oneoflegalinsanitytoattractthemandate
of Section 84IPC. There must be an inability of a person in
9
[(2023) 5 SCC 673]
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
0: 2024:KER:76518
knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either
wrong or contrary to the law.
5. The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non
reum facit nisi mens sit rea i.e. an actdoesnotconstituteguilt
unless done with aguiltyintention.Itisafundamentalprinciple
of criminal law that there has to be an element ofmensreain
forming guilt with intention. Apersonofanunsoundmind,who
is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not
knowthatsuchanactisrightorwrong.Hemaynotevenknow
that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he
cannotbemadetosufferpunishment.Thisactcannotbetermed
as amentalrebellionconstitutingadeviantbehaviourleadingto
a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help,
and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His
position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the
consequence of it.
16.5. TheprincipleslaiddownbytheApexCourtcanbeencapsulatedas
under:
It is for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused committed the crime with the requisite mens rea and this
burden remains with the prosecution from the start to the end of the
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
1: 2024:KER:76518
trial.Inacaseofhomicide,itisfortheprosecutiontoestablishbeyond
reasonable doubt that the accused hadtheintentiontocausedeathas
defined under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The law
would assume that the accused is sane at the time of committing the
offence unless proven otherwise. It would be open to the accused to
place relevant evidence-oral,documentaryorcircumstantial-torebut
this presumption before court. The burden ofproofontheaccusedto
establish the plea of insanity would be lower than that of the
prosecution. The accused is requiredtoprovethathewasnon-compos
mentis on the balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable
doubt.Section84oftheIPCprovidesforanexceptionandtheaccused
would be exempted from criminal liability if, at the time of committing
theoffence,he/shewassufferingfromunsoundnessofmindtosuchan
extentthathe/shewasincapableofunderstandingthenatureofhis/her
act, or that what he/she was doing was wrong or contrary to law.
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into play which
providesthattheburdenofprovingthisexceptionlieswiththeaccused.
The court presumes the absence of such circumstances unless the
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
2: 2024:KER:76518
accused provides sufficient evidencetocreateareasonabledoubt.Ina
case where the plea of insanity is raised, the accused is required to
satisfythecourt,onthebalanceofprobabilities,thatatthetimeofthe
act,he/shewasofunsoundmind.Thiscanbedoneevenbypresenting
evidence such as the conduct of the accused before, during, andafter
the offence. If the court, based on the evidence letinbytheaccused,
entertains a reasonable doubt about the intention of the accused to
commit the act due to unsoundnessofmind,theaccusedisentitledto
anacquittal.Thoughtheprosecutionhasthegeneralburdenofproving
the offence, the accused can rebut the presumption of sanity by
providing evidence of unsoundness of mind or by raising a reasonable
doubtabouthis/hermentalstateatthetimeofthecrime.Legalinsanity
is to be distinguished from medical insanity. The burdentoprovelegal
insanityissquarelyontheaccused. Theconductoftheaccusedbefore,
during,andafterthecommissionoftheactiscrucialindeterminingthe
mentalconditionoftheaccused.Anyevidenceshowingthattheaccused
hasputinanefforttodeliberate,prepareandconcealthecommissionof
the crime or thereafter will indicate that the accused was eminently
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
3: 2024:KER:76518
aware of his/her actions andthiswouldnegatethedefenceofinsanity.
It is for the accused to demonstrate that he was suffering from
unsoundness of mind to the extent that he/she was incapable of
understandingthenatureofhis/heractions. Theburdencastuponthe
accused to substantiate the same is not as stringent as that on the
prosecution and it would be on a preponderance of probabilities.
Though Section 84 of the IPC provides for an exception, it would not
automatically apply in all cases of mental illness. There should be
evidence of the mentalstateoftheaccusedatthetimeoftheoffence,
basedonhis/herbehaviourbefore,during,andafterthecommissionof
the act. It should be borne in mind that it is notmedicalinsanitybut
legalinsanitythatmustbeproven.Itwouldnotbeenoughtoshowthat
the accused wassufferingfromsomementalillnesstoclaimexemption
fromliability. Ontheotherhand,thematerialsshouldsuggestthatthe
accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her act or that it
was wrong orcontrarytolaw.Ifahistoryofinsanityisrevealedduring
the investigation, it is the responsibility of the investigating officer to
subjecttheaccusedtoamedicalexaminationandprovidethatevidence
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
4: 2024:KER:76518
tothecourt.Failuretodosowouldweakenthecaseoftheprosecution
innosmallmeasure.Iftheconductoftheaccusedrevealsanawareness
of guilt, it would undermine the defence of insanity. If the materials
presented by the accused raises areasonabledoubtinthemindofthe
court about his/hermensrea,theaccusedisentitledtoanacquittalon
the ground that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of
proof.
16.6. With the above principles in mind, we shall evaluate the medical
evidence. While tendering evidence, PW20, the investigatingofficer,statedthat
in the bail application dated 9.10.2013 submitted by the accused, acontention
was raised that she was having mental issues. Based on the said information,
Ext.P15applicationwasfiledbeforethelearnedMagistratetoassessthemental
conditionoftheaccused. Thecourtallowedtheapplication. PW15(Dr.Saji)the
Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Government Medical College Hospital,
Kottayam evaluated the appellantfrom28.10.2013to5.11.2013asaninpatient
intheDepartmentofPsychiatry,MCH,Kottayam. TheHeadoftheDepartmentis
Dr. V. Satheesh (DW1). Dr. Saji collected history from the appellant and her
husbandRaju. HenotedthattheappellanthadworkedforthreeyearsatAIIMS,
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
5: 2024:KER:76518
Delhi when shewas24yearsofageandshehadreportedhistoryofPsychiatry
Consultation for features suggestive of depressive disorder. She was also
prescribedimipramine,anantidepressantmedication.Attheageof26years,she
went abroad and worked in Saudi Arabia for a period of five years. Later, she
workedinDubaifrom2008to2012.Whenshehadreached27yearsofage,she
got married. She had Psychiatric consultations in Kerala and in Mumbai in the
years2012and2013.HenotedthatherhistorysuggestedSchizoidandParanoid
Personalitytraitsandanimpulsivenature.TheDoctor'sassessmentwasthatthe
appellant was cooperative and communicative, and was in touch with the
surroundings and reality. Her talk was found to be normal with no abnormal
emotional changes. Her thought process contains delusions, and she has
preoccupyinghomicidalthoughts.TheDoctorwasnotabletoelicitanypsychotic
or depressive features.Shealsodidnothaveanyhallucinatoryexperiencesand
nocognitiveimpairmentwasnoticed.ThePsychiatristconductedapsychological
evaluation for personality assessment and psychometry was performedandthe
findingsweresimilartothefindingsinexaminationofmentalstatus.Thedoctor
found an impression that the appellant was not suffering from any psychotic
disorder as of now. He noted that the history was also suggestive ofrecurrent
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
6: 2024:KER:76518
depressive disorder with poor treatment adherence. He stated that though the
appellantdidnotqualifyforadiagnosisofpsychiatricdisorder,criteria-wise,she
needsandmaybenefitfromregularpsychiatricfollow-ups.Incross-examination,
suggestive questions wereposedregardingpatientswithseveredepressionand
the likelihood of their experiencing delusions and hallucinations. He also
mentioned that on his examination, the appellant was found to havehomicidal
thoughts. He explained that preoccupying homicidal thoughts are thoughts
repeatedlycomingtoone'smindandoccupyingone'sthoughts.Accordingtothe
Doctor, the said fact is distressing because the patient knows that it is not a
normalact.However,indelusion,suchdoubtinthepatientwillnotbethere,as
the patient is sure that what she is thinking is right.
17. DW1isDr.V.Satheesh,theHeadoftheDepartmentofPsychiatry,
Govt.MedicalCollegeHospital,Kottayam.HewassummonedtoproducetheO.P.
Ticket and other details relating to the appellant. He stated that the records
reveal that the appellant was prescribed Sodium Valproate, Quetiapine, and
Risperidone, which are mood stabilisers, and those drugs are given to patients
with Bipolar Disorder as well. DW1 had not seen the patient.
17.1. DW2 is the Superintendent of the District Jail, Kottayam. He
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
7: 2024:KER:76518
produced before the court the records showing the treatment imparted to the
appellant.Accordingtohim,on08.09.2013,thepatientwasprescribedthedrug
Depsonil by the Doctors of the District Hospital, Kottayam.
17.2. DW3 is the Chief Medical Superintendent at Western Railway
Hospital. He stated that from 2009 to February 2018, he had been workingas
Medical Director intheJagjivanRamRailwayHospital,MumbaiCentral.Ext.D15
document was shown to him. The Doctor admitted that, though the signature
seen in the document belonged to him, the document was notwrittenbyhim.
Hestatedthatnormallyentriesweremadebystudentsoftheinstitution.Asper
the O.P.Ticket, the patient was suffering from complaints of sadness in mood,
suicidal ideation, and a past history of depression from 1985. The patient had
also reported that she had been taking medicinesirregularly.Hestatedthaton
inquiry, he found that further treatment records were not available in the
hospital. While cross-examining the witness, it was brought out by the
prosecutionthattheaddressofthepatientwasnotmentionedintheOPDCard,
and there were also over-writings and scoring of certain words.
17.3. DW4 is the Consultant Psychiatrist of Swami Vivekanand Medical
Mission Sanjivani Hospital, Maharashtra. He admitted his signature in Ext.D17
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
8: 2024:KER:76518
OPD card.
17.4. DW5, is a Professor of Psychiatry and working at the Jubilee
MissionMedicalCollegeandResearchInstitute,Thrissur.Ext.D18isanoutpatient
prescription issued from JubileeMissionHospitaltotheaccused,andExt.D19is
thecasesheet. Heproducedtheinformationcollectedfromthepatientandher
husband during consultations in 2017 and 2018. DW5 deposed that Ext.D19
shows that the accused and her husband informed the Doctor that he had
treated her while he was working atAIIMSandthattheyhadconsultedhimat
hisresidenceinKuttanalloorin1997-1998.Herecalledthistobetruebutstated
that he did not have any records from that time. He was unable to make a
definitive diagnosisbutsuspectedparanoidpsychosis,depressionwithpsychotic
features, or paranoid schizophrenia. He stated that a conclusive diagnosis of
mental disorder typically requires observing the patient over a period ranging
from10-30days,andinthecaseoftheaccused,nosuchextendedobservation
had been conducted. The accused first visited him on 23.12.2017, and he had
advisedareviewaftertwomonths,butshereturnedonlyon09.03.2018.During
cross-examination, it was suggested by the prosecution that the accused
approached him after several years of the murder of the child to create a
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :3
9: 2024:KER:76518
defence of insanity.
17.5. An evaluation of the evidence of the medical witnesses would
reveal that the appellant was not suffering from anymentalailmentsofsucha
naturethatshewasnotintouchwiththesurroundingsandreality.Hertalkwas
found to be normal with no abnormal emotional changes. PW15, who had
evaluated the appellant for an extended period after getting input from her as
wellasherhusbandhadstatedinunmistakabletermsthattheappellantwasnot
sufferingfromanypsychoticordepressivefeatures.Therewasalsonohistoryof
any hallucinatory experiences and the doctor has also not noted any cognitive
impairment. PW15 had conducted a psychological evaluation for personality
assessmentandpsychometrywasperformedandthefindingsweresimilartothe
findings in the examination of mental status. The doctor formed animpression
that the appellant was not suffering from any psychoticdisorderasofnow.He
noted that thehistorywasalsosuggestiveofrecurrentdepressivedisorderwith
poor treatment adherence. DWs 1 to 5 have also not stated thattheappellant
was suffering from a serious form ofmentaldisorderwhichimpairedherability
tounderstandtheconsequenceofheractionsortodistinguishrightfromwrong.
DW3hadonlystatedthattherecordrevealsthattheappellantdisplayedsadness
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :4
0: 2024:KER:76518
in mood, suicidal ideation, and past history of depression. DW5 had examined
the patient years after the incident. However, he was not able to come to a
definitediagnosis.ItcannotbeforgottenthattheappellanthadbeenaNursefor
over 30 years and if there were any treatment records, she could have easily
produced it. We are of the view that recurrent depressive disorder with poor
treatment adherence, will not qualify the appellant to enable her to meet the
legal threshold for insanity. There is no material to show that the mental
depression thattheappellantwassufferinghadsignificantlyimpairedherability
to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong.
17.6. As held in Dahyabhai (supra), there is a rebuttable presumption
that the appellant wasnotinsane,whenshecommittedthecrime,inthesense
laid down by Section 84ofthePenalCode.Itisfortheappellanttorebutitby
placing before the court all the relevant evidence -- oral, documentary or
circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests
upon a party to civil proceedings. The evidenceletinbytheappellantwillonly
go to show that she was suffering fromdepressionduringphasesandthatshe
hadundergonetreatmentforthesame.Shehadbeenlivingthelifeofanormal
lady and was employed all through her life. None of the family members have
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :4
1: 2024:KER:76518
stated that they have noticed anything abnormal about the appellant. Though
the appellant has three grownup children and a husband, none of them have
mounted the box to state that they are aware that theappellantwassuffering
fromunsoundnessofmindandthattheyhadexperiencedanysuchbehaviourat
any point of time. No evidence has been letin,eitheroralordocumentary,to
substantiatethattheappellantwassufferingfromanyunsoundnessofmindand
thatshewaseitherincapableofknowingthenatureoftheactcommittedbyher
orthatshewasincapableofknowingthatwhatshewasdoingwaseitherwrong
or contrary to law. The appellant hasnotbeenabletoevenraiseanydoubtas
regardsoneormoreoftheingredientsoftheoffenceincludingmensreaofthe
appellant. On the dayoftheincident,theappellanthadtravelledfromMumbai,
interacted normally with her parents and others, and displayed no signs of
mentalorcognitiveimpairment.Itisasettledpropositionoflawthatthecrucial
point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case
withinthepurviewofSection84isthetimewhentheoffencewascommittedas
held inRatan Lal v. State of M.P.10
10
[(1970) 3 SCC 533
Crl.A. No.797 of 2018 :4
2: 2024:KER:76518
Our Conclusion:
18. We are of the opinion that the appellant though suffered from a
mental ailment like depression and schizoid features even before and after the
incident but from that, one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of
probabilities that theappellantatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffencedid
not know the nature of her act; that it waseitherwrongorcontrarytolaw.In
our opinion, the plea of the appellant does not come within the exception
contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. In view of the discussion above, the finding of the Trial Court
convictingtheappellantoftheoffenceofmurderpunishableunderSection302is
not liable to be interfered with.
This appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment rendered by the Trial
Court.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
d/-
S
G. GIRISH,
PS/30/9/24 JUDGE
