IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must investigate mental health issues adequately when raised as a defense, as failure to do so can result in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above appeal has been preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 613 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thodupuzha. In the above case, the appellant, a lady aged 39/18 years is accused of having committed maternal filicide.

Prosecution Case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had two children in her marriage with PW-1. The elder child is autistic. The younger child (Alex) was 1½ years of age when the alleged incident had taken place. The prosecution alleges that PW-1 was a Mason by profession and was engaged by PW-5, the uncle of the appellant, to carry out some work in his residential home. The appellant, her husband, and two children were residing at the house bearing No. U.G.P. XI/265, which belonged to Peermedu Tea Company, Puthukkada Bhagam, Laundry Kara, Upputhara Village. The prosecution case is that on 18.04.2018, at about 6:30 p.m., the appellant with intent to murder her younger son, pressed his neck and thereby strangulated him.

Registration of the Crime:

3. Joy (PW-1), the husband of the appellant, went to the Upputhara Police Station on 18.04.2018 at 11:50 p.m. and lodged a statement, based on which Ext.P7 FIR was registered as Crime No. 157 of 2018 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. on 19.04.2018. It would be pertinent to note at this juncture that at the time of furnishing the statement, the case of the informant was that his son had fallen from the cot and had suffered certain injuries, and though the child was taken to the St. John’s Hospital, Kattappana, his life could not be saved.

Investigation:

4. The investigation was taken over by the Sub Inspector of Police, Upputhara Police Station. He submitted a report incorporating Section 302 of the IPC. He went to the spot at 11:30 a.m. on 19.04.2018, and prepared the Scene Mahazar. The autopsy of the child was conducted which revealed that constrictive force was inflicted on the neck and that the death of the child was a case of homicide. On 06.05.2018, the accused was arrested as per Ext.P10 Arrest Memo. The investigation was then taken over by PW-18, who completed the investigation and laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattappana for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

5. Committal proceedings were initiated in accordance with the law, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal.

Trial Proceedings:

6. On the appearance of the accused, when the charge was read to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed that she be tried in accordance with the law.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 16, through them, Exts.P1 to P14 were exhibited and marked. MO1 series clothes were produced and identified.

8. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising out of the evidence were put to the accused. She denied all the circumstances and maintained her innocence. She stated that her child had fallen from the cot and had suffered injuries. She asserted that she was suffering from mental disorders and that she was consuming medicines for the same. The accused was then called upon to enter her defence. On her side, Dr. V. Satheesh, the Professor and Head of the Psychiatric Department, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam was examined as DW-1, and through him, Ext. D2 was marked.

Findings of the learned Sessions Judge:

9. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluation of the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that the accused had committed the murder of her younger son by throttling him. To arrive at the following conclusion, the following findings were arrived at:

(a) The claim raised by the defence that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder was rejected for her failure to adduce reliable evidence to substantiate the same.

(b) The Court observed that the evidence clearly established the accused was last seen with the deceased onl