The Kerala High Court has acquitted a woman suffering from mental disorder who had been convicted for killing her mother and her two small daughters and had attempted to commit suicide while stating that normally a woman will not be able to do such a gruesome act alone. “During her examination, she specifically stated that knowingly she can not harm even a fly,” noted the High Court.
The Court held that the failure of the Investigating Officer to subject a murder accused to medical examination in a case where mental stability of the accused is under doubt will entitle the accused to an acquittal.
The Criminal Appeal arose out of the conviction and sentence passed against the accused in the Sessions Court, Kollam of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 10,000 for intentionally causing the death of her mother and two daughters by slashing their neck with knife and further attempted to commit suicide by inflicting a deep injury on her neck but survived.
Learned counsel for the accused Adv. P.K. Varghese, in his arguments thrust upon the ground of infirmity in the investigation in not conducting any enquiry as to the mental state of the accused in spite of there being evidence to the fact of the accused having been subjected to treatment for mental problems.
The learned counsel for accused contends that the various aspects highlighted from the evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt about the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, which would entitle her for benefit of the exception and consequent acquittal, and relied upon Shibu v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 393 : 2013 Crl.A.777/2019 5 (4) KLT 323), Devidas Loka Rathode v. State of Maharashtra (2018 KHC 6471 : AIR 2018 SC 3093), Joseph Mathai @ Jose v. State of Kerala (2019 KHC 934 ).
The court noted the statement given by the doctor, who treated the accused.
The Public Prosecutor contended that the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned sessions Judge is perfectly legal and there is no scope for interference.
The court opined that the records produced through the witnesses lead to an irresistible conclusion that injury sustained to the accused is one arising from a suicidal act and no chance of criminal trespass into the house by any other person for commission of the act. Hence, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused caused the death of her mother and children and she attempted to commit suicide is perfectly in order.
The court mentions the burden to prove that at the time of commission of the offence accused was legally insane by establishing that she was incapable of knowing the nature of act or that what she was doing was wrong or contrary to law is upon the accused under Sec.105 of Evidence act.
A division bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and M.R. Anitha spoke of the duty of the Investigating Officer to make enquiry of the accused and that he should have initiated a psychiatric evaluation, immediately after the occurrence and relied upon it.
Devidas Loka Rathode, the Apex Court set aside the concurrent findings of guilt against the accused under Secs 302 and 324 IPC upholding his defence under Sec.84 IPC in which it has been discussed therein that in view of the previous history of insanity of the accused, it was the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and place that evidence before the Court and if it is not done, it creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
The court concludes the proceeding by enunciating-
“Peculiar nature of the offence of matricide and filicide of two small daughters coupled with the factors brought out during investigation ought to have been taken into account by the Investigating Officer to subject the accused to medical examination immediately after the incident to ascertain the soundness of mind of the accused at the crucial time of the incident.
Failure to do the same creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case which would entitle the accused to benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. In other words, the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution and defence creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the mens rea of the accused and the general burden of proof on that aspect resting on the prosecution was not discharged and that would enable the accused to benefit of doubt.”
Read Also: Supreme Court issues notice to UIDAI over impersonation of sureties
In the result, Appeal stands allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the accused is hereby set aside, the Court said.
Hence, the court directed the accused be kept in safe custody as provided under Sec.335(1)(a) Cr.P.C r/w Sec.103 of Mental Health Crl.A.777/2019 19 Care Act, 2017 and the Mental Health Care (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018, after the release on parole, in a Mental Health Care Establishment, or if the same is not established, the accused to be detained in any of the Mental Health Centres.
kerala-io-judgement