Depression Not 'Legal Insanity' U/S 84 IPC If Ability To Distinguish Right From Wrong Not Impaired: Kerala HC Upholds Murder Conviction

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G.Girish observed,

“We are of the opinion that the appellant though suffered from a mental ailment like depression and schizoid features even before and after the incident but from that, one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of probabilities that the appellant at the time of the commission of the offence did not know the nature of her act; that it was either wrong or contrary to law. In our opinion, the plea of the appellant does not come within the exception contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.”

The woman had approached the High Court in appeal challenging conviction by the Sessions Court.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed murder of her brother's son in the year 2013 so that her brother does not continue in his strained marriage. She allegedly strangled the boy with her pyjama string while he slept at night so that her brother and his wife do not reunite.

The appellant's husband submitted an application before the judicial magistrate claiming that she requires medicines for her mental illness. In her bail application, it was argued that she was undergoing mental illness since 1985.

The mental status of the appellant was examined by the psychiatry department and it was found that she was not suffering from any psychotic disorder and was deemed fit for the trial.

The Sessions Court found that the appellant was sleeping with her nephew in a closed room before he was found dead. Sessions Court also noted that the appellant herself informed the police that she murdered her nephew.

In appeal, it was contended that she had no motive, grudge or animosity towards the nephew to commit the murder. It was argued that appellant herself intimated the police since she was unaware of the consequences of her act due to unsoundness of mind. It was submitted that appellant had depression symptoms and was prescribed with medication used for patients with psychotic disorders.

The Court relying upon Bapu Alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007) and Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra (1973) held that mere absence of motive will not attract the plea of legal insanity under Section 84 of the IPC, in the absence of proof of legal insanity.

The Court observed that on the day of the murder, the appellant was angry that her father refused to offer her financial assistance and she was angry that he was willing to offer assistance to her brother's wife, with whom she had a difficult relationship. Court stated that this along with her love for her brother might have given motive to appellant to commit the murder of her nephew.

The Court further stated that to claim plea of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC, the appellant had to prove she was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by her due to unsoundness of mind. It noted that the appellant has to prove that she was incapable of knowledge that she was committing a wrong act, contrary to law.

Relying upon Apex Court decisions in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat (1964), Prakash Nayi v. State of Goa (2023), the Court stated that there is a presumption that the accused was sane at the time of committing the act, unless proven otherwise. It added that the accused has to prove legal insanity using oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence to rebut the presumption of sanity and prove that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of the act.

“The burden of proof on the accused to establish the plea of insanity would be lower than that of the prosecution. The accused is required to prove that he was non-compos mentis on the balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt…. The court presumes the absence of such circumstances unless the accused provides sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt. In a case where the plea of insanity is raised, the accused is required to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that at the time of the act, he/she was of unsound mind.. If the court, based on the evidence let in by the accused, entertains a reasonable doubt about the intention of the accused to commit the act due to unsoundness of mind, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.”

The Court added that the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of act was crucial to determine the mental condition. It stated that legal insanity has to be proved and not medical insanity. The Court thus held that it was not sufficient to prove that accused was suffering from some mental illness to seek exemption under section 84 of the IPC.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the appellant exhibited features suggestive of depressive disorder and was also on antidepressant medication.

However, the Court noted that the appellant was not facing psychotic disorders now. The Court stated that the accused was not suffering from any mental ailments and was normal, with no abnormal emotional changes.

“It cannot be forgotten that the appellant had been a Nurse for over 30 years and if there were any treatment records, she could have easily produced it. We are of the view that recurrent depressive disorder with poor treatment adherence, will not qualify the appellant to enable her to meet the legal threshold for insanity. There is no material to show that the mental depression that the appellant was suffering had significantly impaired her ability to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong” Stated the Court.

As such, the Court found that the appellant had not furnished evidence to rebut the presumption of sanity while committing the murder. It held that the appellant had only shown that she was suffering from depression during phases and she had taken treatment for it. The Court added that the appellant was working over the years as a nurse and was behaving as a normal lady and none of the family members had noted any unusual behaviour.

As such, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Nandagopal S Kurup

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Neema T V

Case Number: CRL.A NO. 797 OF 2018

Case Title: Vijayamma v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 663

Click here to Read/Download Judgment