Kerala High Court Acquits Accused In A Triple Murder Case For Failure Of Investigation Officer To Ascertain Mental Stability

This comes after a plethora of evidence and overwhelming factors in investigation induced reasonable doubt about the mental condition of the accused, despite which no medical examination was conducted.

The appeal was preferred by accused Lalitha, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against her by the Sessions Judge u/s 302 & 309 IPC for the alleged murder of her mother and two minor daughters.

Representing the appellant, Adv P.K. Varghese asserted infirmity in the investigation in not conducting any enquiry as to her mental state in spite evidence of her having been subjected to treatment for mental problems. He urged that this entitled her for benefit of the exception and consequent acquittal.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice M.R. Anitha noticed that although the burden to prove that at the time of commission of the offence accused was legally insane was vested on the accused u/s.105 of Evidence Act, the accused failed to discharge the onus of proving her unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offence.

The evidence produced during trial only proved that the accused had undergone treatment for delusional disorder four years before the incident and for schizophrenia one year later. No evidence was produced regarding her state of mind at the time of the incident. Dissatisfied with this, the court observed that 'every person suffering from mental illness ipso facto is not exempted from criminal liability.'

"There is distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity and Courts are concerned with legal insanity and not medical insanity. The burden of proof is upon the accused to prove the legal insanity under Sec.105 of Evidence Act, which the accused failed to discharge either by bringing out materials from the prosecution case or from the evidence adduced from the defence side".

The argument of the defence is confined to the entitlement of benefit of doubt to the accused on account of the total absence of enquiry into the mental condition of accused, despite it having come out from investigation that the accused had undergone treatment for mental illness. 

However, the Court found merit in the argument of infirmity in the investigation. The nature of the act of mindless killing of her own mother and children ought to have cautioned the Investigating Officer. Such an act called for an immediate enquiry and the accused should have been subjected to a psychiatric evaluation. Failure to do the same creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case which would entitle the accused to benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.

The Court relied on Joseph Mathai @ Jose v. State of Kerala (2019 KHC 934 ) in which it is held that if previous history of insanity is revealed during investigation, the Investigating Officer has a duty to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before Court. Failure of the same creates serious infirmity in prosecution case and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 

"Matricide and maternal filicide followed by an attempt to commit suicide are the offences proved to have been committed by the accused. Normally a lady will not be able to do such gruesome act solitary or at a stretch. During her examination she specifically stated that knowingly she can not harm even a fly", observed the Court.

The Bench observed that if the Investigating Officer was fair enough and wanted to bring the true facts before the Court he would have made an enquiry into the aspect of the soundness of the mind of the accused.

"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"

Hence, the Bench while holding that evidence adduced from 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, allowed the appeal.

Title: Lalitha @ Latha v. State of Kerala