The reformation of criminals and the potential for a reformed appellant to contribute positively to society were central to the court's decision.

ORDER

When this matter came up for hearing on 9th November, 2016, the following order was passed :

“Pursuant to our order dated 01.09.2016, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh has sent his report about the mental condition of the appellant. As per the said report, the appellant was examined in a Government Hospital and the conclusion of the Doctor is that she is not suffering from any psychiatric illness or perceptual disturbance or any formal thought disorder. To put it otherwise, it is stated that as far as mental condition of the appellant is concerned, she is normal and stable.

In the instant case, the charge against the appellant was that she killed her daughter Kumari Deepa aged about four years on 21.06.2003. From the record it is not discernible as to what could be the reason for a mother to kill her daughter. She has already suffered 13 years of incarceration.

We are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mohammad Mannan who is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case shall visit the Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh where the appellant is lodged so that he is able to interact with her on the aforesaid aspect, inasmuch as we are of the prima facie view that her case for remission of further sentence needs to be considered by the State. In order to pass an effective order in this behalf, the aforesaid proposed interview/interaction by the learned Amicus Curiae with the appellant becomes necessary.

We request the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to make necessary arrangements for the aforesaid visit of Mr. Mohammad Mannan, Amicus Curiae. If possible, a lady advocate on the panel of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee can also be deputed to accompany the Amicus Curiae.

List the matter in the second week of December, 2016.”

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Mr. Mohammad Mannan, learned Amicus Curiae, visited the Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, along with Ms. Sudha Gupta, learned counsel, who was deputed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Compliance reports are submitted by the Amicus Curiae, as well as by Ms. Sudha Gupta. On going through these reports, it transpires that they had met the appellant, since she is lodged in a cell with four other female prisoners, and that Ms. Sudha Gupta had even interacted with those female prisoners as well. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, she informed Ms. Sudha Gupta that she did not even remember anything about the incident of 2003. Other four female prisoners told Ms. Sudha Gupta that when the appellant was brought to the Central Jail in 2003, all of them were already in the jail. They found that the appellant was not in a sound mental condition and was not in her senses. She had to be force-fed, given bath like a child and would not react in spite of being undressed completely. She even did not interact with anybody and was oblivious of her surroundings. Going by this condition of the appellant, the jail authorities had sent her to a mental asylum where she was treated for some time. However, the jail authorities did not show the medical record of the appellant of 2003. With the passage of time her mental condition has improved and that is why the latest medical report shows that she is not suffering from any psychiatric illness or perceptual disturbance or any formal thought disorder and that she is, in fact, normal and stable. The jail authorities also informed Mr. Mannan and Ms. Sudha Gupta that her conduct has remained steadfast all this period. She has now been given the responsibility of supervising the female prisoners. She even started her education in jail and has now cleared Class VIII examination. She has also learnt sewing and embroidery in the jail as well as Yoga, which she practices regularly. She has even participated in Nukkad Natak (street play).

3. From the aforesaid, this Court gets an impression that even if it is to be presumed that the appellant had committed the murder of her daughter,