'Lack Of Motive May Support Insanity Plea' : Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of Mother Who Killed 2 Daughters Under 'Invisible Influence'

The Supreme Court yesterday reduced the sentence of a woman, who was convicted for killing her daughters, aged 3 and 5 years, by altering the conviction under Section 302(murder) of the Indian Penal Code to a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC).

The appellant, who was sentenced to life, said that she committed the murders under an "invisible influence."

Since the woman had also undergone 9 years and 10 months in custody, the Court held that she was entitled to be released since Part II of Section 304 provides for a maximum punishment of 10 years

The Court held that since there was no plausible explanation for her conditions, given the circumstances, it would be inferred that the Appellant was under a certain impaired mental condition. 

"In the present case, we have also noted that no particulars have been mentioned about the nature of the "invisible influence" and as such it can be purely in the realm of speculation that this "invisible influence" may be a symptom of such mental conditions referred to above. However, in the light of the strange, bizarre and inexplicable behaviour of the appellant, there is no other plausible explanation that could be attached to her conduct in the given circumstances, other than to infer that she was under certain impaired mental."

Lack of motive may be relevant to decide plea of insanity

Therefore, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh held that a reasonable doubt can be said to have arisen in respect of the intention to cause death by the Appellant. It also held that when an accused takes the plea which raises concerns about the mental stability, the existence or lack of motive assumes great significance.

"However, in cases where the plea taken by the accused is such that it raises a concern about the mental stability of the accused, the existence or lack of motive assumes great significance. This is especially true in cases involving grave offences such as murder, where a complete absence of any kind of motive which ordinarily impels a person to commit such a crime may lend credence to the plea of insanity, as in the present case, where a mother has taken the life of her own children of tender age apparently in absence of any motive."

While holding so, the Court stated that trial Courts should keep in mind certain things 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.

"If such circumstances emerge in course of the trial which remain inexplicable and bizarre as in the present case, the court, in our opinion, 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 actusreas but also mens rea."

This assumes great importance when the accused pleads the 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, the Court added.

The Court added: "It is for the salutary reason 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."

The Court came to this conclusion, taking into account that during the commission of the crime, she kept shouting that she was killing her child, and post the incident, she kept crying and repeating that she had killed her children. She also did not try to flee the scene of the crime, among other considerations. However, the Court did not give the advantage of Section 84 (act of a person of unsound mind) of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of any conclusive medical evidence with regards to the mental condition of the Appellant.

"Nevertheless, in our view, 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 present case. We are, thus, satisfied that in the present case “intention of causing death” cannot be said to have proved."

The appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Chhattisgarh High Court whereby the division bench upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. .

In 2016, the Trial Court sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000. Before the Trial Court, she had taken a plea that she was under the influence of a certain invisible power when she committed the Act.  The Appeal against the Trial Court's order was also dismissed. 

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the appellant had assaulted both her daughters, which caused previous injuries, thereby causing death. It held that the defence sought by the Appellant is not legally recognised under Section 84 IPC.

"However, mere odd behaviour or certain physical or mental ailments affecting the emotions or capacity to think and act properly have not been construed to be “unsound mind” within the scope of Section 84 of the IPC.  or disturbs the faculty of the person which renders him...In the present case, it is noticed that apart from the plea taken by the appellant during her examination under Section 313 CrPC that she was under the influence of invisible power, no evidence has been brought on record by them appellant which would prove that she was of “unsound mind” within the meaning of Section 84 of IPC.

The Court added that just because the Appellant could not convey her condition in a legally understandable expression, her plea cannot be completely ignored. 

"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 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, the Court added.

Therefore, it converted the conviction of the Appellant under Part II of Section 304 IPC. .

"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 सुनेबहुतेरे, माता सुनी न कु माता” 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," the Court concluded.

Case Details: CHUNNI BAI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH|(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. 13119 of 2024)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 497

Click Here To Read Order