2025 Supreme(SC) 724

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Chunni Bai - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2265 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13119 of 2024)
Decided On : 28-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mental insanity of accused – Only such mental or medical condition which affects or disturbs faculty of person which renders him unable to know nature of act committed or that he was doing which he did not know that it was wrong or contrary to law can be given benefit of insanity under Section 84 IPC and escape criminal liability.
(2) Motive – Evidentiary value – In cases where direct evidence is available that links accused to offence, absence of proof of motive or intention does not preclude conviction of accused – However, in cases where plea taken by accused is such that it raises concern about mental stability of accused, existence or lack of motive assumes great significance.
(3) Burden of Proof – Though in a criminal case burden of proof to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt is on prosecution, however, under Section 105 of Evidence Act, 1872, burden of proof to prove existence of such circumstances which would attract any of exceptions is on accused.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of own daughters – Conviction and sentence – FSL report confirmed presence of human blood on seized iron pounder – In any criminal case, burden of proof is on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure conviction of accused – Evidence on record clearly shows that appellant had caused death of her children by hitting them with an iron crowbar on their heads – There is no infirmity in finding given by Trial Court as well as High Court that appellant had assaulted both of her daughters, which caused grievous injuries, thereby causing their death – When a person performs an act, he is attributed with intention to cause natural consequences that follows from the act performed – Once factum of homicide being committed by appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt and considering nature of injuries received by minor victims at hands of appellants with iron crowbar on the basis of medical and other evidence brought on record, it can be stated that intention to commit homicide can certainly be inferred as had been done by Trial Court and High Court – However, it cannot be conclusively held in present case that intention of appellant or conscious knowledge of what she was doing, a component of mens rea, has been established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 16, 22, 23, 24 and 25)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 84 – Murder of own daughters – Conviction and sentence – Mental insanity of accused – Only such mental or medical condition which affects or disturbs faculty of person which renders him unable to know nature of act committed or that he was doing which he did not know that it was wrong or contrary to law can be given benefit of insanity under Section 84 IPC and escape criminal liability – No evidence has been brought on record by appellant which would prove that she was of “unsound mind” within meaning of Section 84 of IPC – Nevertheless, merely because appellant could not convey herself in a legally understandable expression or idiom of her mental condition to indicate existence of legal insanity or prove such a condition and provide evidence, such a plea could not have been completely ignored by Trial Court or by High Court – Incident happened in a rural setting and appellant not being highly educated, possibility of confusing her unstable mental condition or temporary lapse of judgmental power bordering on temporary insanity cannot be completely ruled out – Appellant had cordial relationship with all family members including her children which clearly indicates absence of any ill-feelings on part of appellant to provide any basis for any motive to commit crime which will prove presence of “intention” to commit the act – In present case “intention of causing death” cannot be said to have been proved – Conviction of appellant converted under Part II of Section 304 IPC from that of Section 302 IPC and sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 58, 60 and 61)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105 – Burden of Proof – Though in a criminal case burden of proof to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt is on prosecution, however, under Section 105 of Evidence Act, 1872, burden of proof to prove existence of such circumstances which would attract any of exceptions is on accused – Standard of proof for accused required by law in such cases, in invoking any exception clause is preponderance of probability, which is also adopted in civil cases – If accused is able to raise reasonable doubt in mind of court that there exists possibility of existence of such circumstances based on preponderance of probability, that would attract exception as mentioned under IPC, and if said burden of proof is discharged by accused, he would be entitled to such benefit of exception – In order to discharge burden of proof on any of exceptions pleaded, it is not imperative for accused to lead defence evidence – Court can also by taking into consideration evidence available on record, which may have been presented by prosecution, reach a conclusion that an exception is attracted in a given case. (Paras 28, 29 and 30)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Mental insanity of accused – There is a difference between medical insanity and legal insanity – What Section 84 IPC provides is legal insanity as distinguished from medical insanity – A person is said to be of unsound mind on whom criminal liability cannot be fastened if at the time of commission of act, he is incapable of knowing nature of act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law – Mere odd behaviour or certain physical or mental ailments affecting emotions or capacity to think and act properly have not been construed to be “unsound mind” within scope of Section 84 of IPC – It is not common for rustic persons to be aware of various mental disorders/illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, that may temporarily impair mental condition of an individual – More often than not, these disorders are unrecognised and remain untreated as it may be difficult to identify symptoms and they do not seek proper and timely medical intervention, resulting in such medical/mental conditions which can be misinterpreted or confused with spells or influence of invisible forces based on superstitions. (Paras 33 and 36)

(E) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – In cases where direct evidence is available that links accused to offence, absence of proof of motive or intention does not preclude conviction of accused – However, in cases where plea taken by accused is such that it raises concern about mental stability of accused, existence or lack of motive assumes great significance – This is especially true in cases involving grave offences such as murder, where complete absence of any kind of motive which ordinarily impels a person to commit such a crime may lend credence to plea of insanity, as in present case, where a mother has taken life of her own children of tender age apparently in absence of any motive – Motive is usually basis for causing “intention” to commit any crime, but it is highly elusive and difficult to prove as it remains hidden in deep recesses of mind and is not comprehensible to others, unless disclosed by perpetrator – Though under law, it is absolutely not necessary that to prove an offence, motive is also required to be established if intention or mens rea can be safely inferred from surrounding facts – But where motive which can provide basis for intention appears to be totally missing, court has to be very circumspect in drawing inference of proof of presence of intention. (Paras 39 and 47)

(F) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 165 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 161 and 162 – Statement of witness – Even though statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to embargo placed under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., however, power of Trial Court under Section 165 of Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to any witness or party at any stage to secure ends of justice – If such circumstances emerge in course of trial which remain inexplicable and bizarre, even if accused opts to remain silent, Court should ask such questions to witnesses as may be necessary to elicit truth by invoking Section 165 of Evidence Act, since court has to be satisfied that offence alleged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt not only in respect of actus rea but also mens rea – This assumes great importance when accused pleads existence of certain circumstances which are beyond his/her control and which may indicate unsoundness of mind even temporarily, incapacitating accused to take a conscious and informed decision. (Paras 54 and 64)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1035 of 2016 whereby, High Court upheld conviction and sentence imposed upon present appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

Appellant has already undergone 9 (nine) years 10 (ten) months of custody. Part II of Section 304 IPC provides for punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 (ten) years or with fine or with both.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.