In cases involving mental illness and lack of intent to cause death, a conviction under Section 302 may not be sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal challenges the concurrent judgment and order dated 16th October 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2013 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and the judgment and order dated 1st August 2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant.

4. We have heard Shri Shri A. Sirajuddin, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Prachi Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General (for short, “AAG”) appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh.

5. Shri A. Sirajuddin submits that, from the materials placed on record it would reveal that the appellant had no intention to cause death of her father. He submits that the evidence would clearly show that the deposition of PWs.1 to 4 would reveal that the appellant was mentally ill and was brought to the house of PW.1-Mahipal for treating her. He submits that the weapon alleged to have been used in the crime i.e. a spade is also recovered from PW.1-Mahipal. He further submits that the evidence itself would clearly show that the weapon used was the one which was very much available in the house of PW.1-Mahipal. He therefore, submits that the present appellant is entitled to get benefit under Section 84 of the IPC.

6. Ms. Prachi Mishra vehemently opposes the appeal. She submits that, for granting benefit under Section 84 of the IPC read with Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is necessary for the accused to establish as to what was the nature of mental illness and also to prove that the accused was suffering from insanity, so as to disable an accused from knowing as to what he/she was doing. In support of her contention, Ms. Mishra, relies on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Prem Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi): (2023) 3 SCC 372, Bapu alias Gujrat Singh v. State of Rajasthan : (2007) 8 SCC 66 and Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495.

7. No doubt, that Ms. Mishra is right in relying on the judgments of this Court, as cited above, which hold that, for entitling an accused of the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC, it is necessary for an accused to establish as to what was the nature of mental ailment and also that the accused suffered from insanity, which disabled the accused from knowing as to what he/she was doing.

8. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW.1-Mahipal would reveal that the incident has taken place in his house. His evidence would show that the accused-Sumitra Bai along with the deceased-Mangal Sai, who was her father, had come to the house of PW.1-Mahipal for treating her mental ailment. He states that in the evening of the date of the occurrence, while they were lighting fire for cooking dinner in their courtyard, the accused picked up the spade (fawda) and assaulted the deceased-Mangal Sai on his head. PW.1-Mahipal further states that when his son-Tilsai returned home, he saw that the accused had already assaulted and killed the deceased-Mangal Sai, after which PW.1-Mahipal entered and saw Mangal Sai lying dead.

9. PW.1-Mahipal has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused-Sumitra Bai was mentally insane. He has further admitted that a lot of people come to him to be treated for mental illness. He has further admitted that he did not see the accused assaulting the deceased. He admitted that since he had not witnessed the incident, he could not state anything about the same.

10. PW.3-Tilsai is the son of PW.1-Mahipal. He also states that when he came home after washing his hands and feet, he had seen that the accused had assaulted and killed Mangal Sai, on which he screamed and his parents came hearing him. He has also admitted in his evidence that the accused and her father-Mangal