Supreme Court Orders Release Of Daughter Suffering From Mental Illness After 12 Year Sentence For Homicide Of Father
Recently, the Supreme Court released a daughter who was incarcerated for more than 12 years on being convicted for murdering her father. The Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant (daughter) had argued that she was suffering from a mental illness.A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the prosecution had failed to establish that the act was done by...
Recently, the Supreme Court released a daughter who was incarcerated for more than 12 years on being convicted for murdering her father. The Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant (daughter) had argued that she was suffering from a mental illness.
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the prosecution had failed to establish that the act was done by the appellant with the intention to cause the death of her father. Accordingly, it set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and held that the offence was punishable under Part I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Considering the fact that she had already undergone 12 years in jail, the Bench noted that the same would subserve the ends of justice.
It was the prosecution’s case that, while lighting fire for cooking dinner, Sumitra (appellant) had hit her father with a spade (fawda).
Senior Advocate, Mr. A. Sirajudeen submitted that Sumitra did not intend to kill her father. He emphasised that from the evidence on record it is evident that Sumitra was suffering from mental illness. Mr. Sirajudeen urged that Sumitra is entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC (insanity defence).
Additional Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, Ms. Prachi Mishra opposed the appellant’s plea stating that in order to invoke the insanity defence the appellant ought to establish the nature of mental ailment and also prove that she was suffering for insanity which disabled her from knowing what she was doing.
The issue that the Bench thought required to be gone into was - whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Bench noted that the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses (PW1) demonstrated that the incident took place at his place, where the deceased had accompanied her daughter for treatment of her mental ailments. In his cross-examination the prosecution witness had admitted that Sumitra was ‘mentally insane’. However, he clarified that he was not an eye-witness to the incident. His son (PW3) had testified that Sumitra and the deceased were staying at their house for a duration of one and a half months. Both the witnesses had agreed that they hosted mentally ill persons at their house who would come for medical treatment. Sumitra’s brother (PW4) had also deposed that his sister was mentally ill and she was taken to PW1’s house for treatment. It was taken note of that there were no eye-witnesses to the incident. The Bench noted that the prosecution had failed to prove the real genesis of the incident. It also observed that no motive for committing the murder was established by the prosecution.
“We, therefore, find that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the act was done by the appellant, with the intention to cause the death of the deceased.”
Case Details
Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh| 2023 LiveLaw SC 322 |Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2023| 10th April, 2023| Justice BR Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar