( 1 ) ON 29-4-1965, at about 1-30 p. m. , when Sri Ram Parkash (P. W. 1) along with his friend Sri Kanhaiya Lal (P. W. 3) were passing through the lane on the backside of House No. 489/6, situate in Prem Gali, heard the shrieks of a child from inside the house. They peeped through the window of that house which abutted the lane and which was open and they saw that the appellant Shanti Devi was holding a razor in her right hand and cutting the neck of a child (her own child), aged about one year and that the child was crying and blood was oozing out of his neck. Both of them hurriedly entered the house through its main gate on the other side of the wall while raising an alarm with a view to save the child s life. Meanwhile, Shiv Shankar (P. W. 4), a boy residing in the neighbourhood also came to the spot. Seeing all the three people, Smt. Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, left the child, sat down on a cot and threw the razor under the cot. Leaving Shri Kanhaiya Lal (P. W 3) and Shri Shiv Shankar (P,w. 4) at the spot, Shri Ram Parkash went to Gandhinagar Police Station of North Delhi District and gave a report of the occurrence On this, the police came to the spot, took up the investigation and prosecuted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. for murdering the child. The learned Magistrate in whose Court the challan was submitted found a prima facie case against the appellant and committed her for trial by the Court of Sessions under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, by his judgment dated 25-1-1966, found her guilty of her child s murder and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for life As the learned Additional Sessions Judge posed before himself, there were two questions for decision in the case before him; one was as to whether Mst. Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, killed the child with a razor as alleged by the prosecution and the second question was as to whether she was insane, not capable of understanding the consequences of her acts, at that time, On the first question, on the evidence available, he came to the conclusion that Smt. Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, killed the child with a razor. On the second question, he came to the conclusion that the evidence before him did not establish the plea of insanity set up by the appellant herein. It is on the basis of this conclusion of his, he convicted the appellant and sentenced her as mentioned above. Hence this appeal by Smt. Shanti Devi.

( 2 ) THE only point that was argued before us was that the appellant herein was insane at the time when she killed her child so as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly established that the appellant herein, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, which she committed, when she killed her own child. After carefully considering the evidence available in the case and the surrounding circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant herein is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. We shall refer to the evidence available in this case and also the reason why the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the evidence sufficient to establish the plea of insanity put forward by the appellant herein. As stated already, P. W. 1, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 were eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 6, Smt. Sumitra Devi, was a lady constable who joined the investigation of this case and at the place of occurrence, she removed a dhoti from the person of the appellant, having some blood-stains. P. W. 1, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 stated that when they reached the room, the appellant was sitting on a cot and the child was lying in the room at a distance of about one foot only from her and that she was sitting there quie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document