'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 yearsThe 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 insanityTherefore, 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...

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

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Though the Court did not completely accept the defence of insanity, it said that the mother's conduct bordered on temporary insanity.

Tags