The Supreme Court released a Chhattisgarh woman after nearly 10 years in jail for killing her daughters, reducing her charge citing possible mental instability. The Court noted rural ignorance of mental health and gave her the benefit of doubt.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday ordered the release of a woman who had killed her two young daughters using an iron crowbar back in 2015. The woman, from Bharadkala village in Chhattisgarh, had attacked her daughters, aged 3 and 5, resulting in their tragic deaths.
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, while hearing her case, observed that there was a possibility of temporary mental instability at the time of the incident.
The Court said,
“Temporary lapse of judgmental power bordering on temporary insanity cannot be completely ruled out in the case.”
Because of this, the judges decided to change her conviction. Instead of being convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), her offence was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The Court also noted that the woman had already spent more than nine years and ten months in custody. Taking this into account, they ordered her to be released immediately.
The Court ruled,
“Upon her conviction under Part II of Section 304 IPC as above, as she has already undergone more than 9 (nine) years and 10 (ten) months of sentence, we sentence the appellant to the period already undertaken by her without any fine.”
According to case details, the crime was witnessed by the woman’s sister-in-law. She testified in court that she saw the woman attacking her daughters and heard her shouting that she was killing them. After the incident, the trial court found the woman guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court later upheld this decision.
However, the woman moved to the Supreme Court, claiming that she was mentally disturbed at that time. She argued that she had acted under the influence of an “invisible power.”
While the Supreme Court accepted that the killing was beyond doubt, they questioned whether the woman truly intended to commit the crime. They considered the unique circumstances surrounding the case. The judges highlighted the fact that there was no clear motive for the crime and that her claim of being under an invisible influence, even though not backed by medical reports, could not be dismissed entirely.
The Court observed,
“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’.”
The bench further pointed out that the woman shared a loving relationship with her children and family. There was no evidence suggesting domestic disputes or financial problems that could have led to such an act.
The Court also gave guidance to trial courts, saying that whenever an accused person claims to be under bizarre influences, like invisible forces, such claims should be properly investigated.
It said,
“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.”
Further, the Court threw light on the lack of mental health awareness in rural India.
It said,
“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. 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.”
Because there was no strong medical proof of insanity but enough doubts in the surrounding facts, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the woman had the intention to kill beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, her conviction was reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Advocate S Mahendran represented the woman in the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the State was represented by Advocates Prerna Dhall, Akansha Singh, Shivam Ganeshia, Ambuj Swaroop, and Prashant Singh.
CASE TITLE:
Chunni Bai vs. State of Chattisgarh.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjiv Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
