Chunni Bai vs State of Chhattisgarh

Held: No infirmity in the finding given by the Trial Court as well as the High Court that the appellant had assaulted both of her daughters, which caused grievous injuries, thereby causing their death – 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” – Appellant had a cordial relationship with all the family members including her children, which clearly indicates absence of any ill feelings on the part of the appellant to provide any basis for any motive to commit the crime which will prove the presence of “intention” to commit the act – The statement of the father-in-law (PW-5) of the appellant recorded that 15 days prior to the incident, the appellant was babbling nonsense, saying that she is Mata, Budi Dai etc. – Further, it was also mentioned that the appellant was taken to the Psychiatrist at Government Hospital, Durg where she was given medicine and was advised to follow up – Under the circumstances, in view of the plea taken by the appellant, a reasonable doubt can be said to have arisen as regards existence of intention, thus of mens rea for causing death in the present case as – (i) During the commission of crime, the appellant was shouting that she is killing her children; (ii) Post the incident, the appellant, on being asked the reason behind her act, kept on crying and repeating that she has killed her children – This is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses as well; (iii) The appellant did not try to flee the scene of crime even after being left alone in the house by PW-1; (iv) Complete absence of motive behind the commission of crime in background of the fact that the appellant loved her children very much, as also acknowledged by the prosecution witness; (v) The nature of relation between the accused and the deceased i.e., of a mother and child; (vi) Absence of any strained domestic relationships or any such motivating factor – However, in the absence of any conclusive medical evidence with regards to the mental condition of the appellant, it may not be enough to extend the benefit of exception as encapsulated in s.84 IPC so as to acquit the appellant in the present case – Nevertheless, 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 – Thus, in the present case “intention of causing death” cannot be said to have proved – Therefore, the conviction of the appellant converted to under Part II of s.304 IPC is from that of s.302 IPC. [Paras 16, 36, 43, 53, 57, 58, 60]

Penal Code, 1860 – Murder and Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Difference between – Discussed. [Paras 18-21]

Evidence Act, 1872 – s.105 – Burden of Proof to prove existence of circumstances which would attract any of the pleaded exceptions is on accused. [Paras 28-31]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.84 – Legal insanity vis-à-vis medical insanity – Discussed. [Para 33]

Criminal Law – Rustic person – Not aware of various mental disorders/illness – Discussed. [Para 36]

Evidence – Grave offences – Direct evidence available – Absence of proof of motive or intention:

Held: In cases where direct evidence is available that links the accused to the offence, absence of proof of motive or intention does not preclude conviction of the accused – 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. [Para 39]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161, 162 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.165 – Court to put questions to witnesses to elicit the truth:

Held: Even though the statements recorded u/s.161 of CrPC cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to the embargo placed u/s.162 CrPC, however, the power of the Trial Court u/s.165 Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on the statement u/s.161 CrPC to any witness or party at any stage to secure the ends of justice – Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case and the statement of PW-5 recorded u/s.161 CrPC to put right questions to the parties and witnesses to ascertain the motive or intention of the appellant in committing the crime. [Paras 54, 56, 64]