Somnambulism an unsoundness.

This is an appeal preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai Division, in Sessions Case No. 163 of 1957.

The facts are brief: The accused Pappathi Ammal is the wife of P.W. 1. They have been living with their children in a compound where there are 4 or 5 houses. Pappathi Ammal had been confined within four weeks before the commission of this offence. It would also appear that she was unwell from diarrhoea and fever after child birth. On account of the poverty and inability to secure other help she had to do her household chores. Therefore, she seems to have been depressed and fed up with her life.

On the night of 28th October, 1957, the landlady P.W. 2 heard the noise of a splash and she woke up and found lights burning in the house of the accused. Therefore, she went and woke up P.W. 1, the husband of the accused, and told him what she had heard. They found the accused missing. They started searching the compound. Then they heard a noise from within the well. They found the accused within the well. They raised an alarm. A crowd of people gathered. A ladder was brought and set inside the well. The accused came out of the well climbing the ladder. On coming out of the well she was enquired about the child. The accused stated that the child was inside the well. Thereupon P.W. 1 made a written report to the Police at 7-30 a.m. in the morning. The Police came to the spot, took out the child whose legs were protruding over the surface of the water in the well. Inquest was held and investigation followed. The accused was charge-sheeted for the murder of the child and for attempting to commit suicide.

These facts are spoken to by the husband of the accused P.W. 1, the landlady P.W. 2 and the other people who came there P.Ws. 3 to 5 and Doctor, P.W. 6 who spoke to the death of the child due to asphyxia due to drowning.

The case set up for the accused was that she was a sleep-walker or somnambulist, that during such sleep-walking she must have walked into the well with the child and that by reason of that somnambulism when the offence was committed, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of section 84, Indian Penal Code.

The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved as a fact the somnambulism attributed to the accused and secondly that somnambulism would not amount to that unsoundness of mind and incapacity of knowing the nature of the act or knowing what she or he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, contemplated under section 84, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge therefore convicted the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. He also convicted her under section 309, Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year. The sentences were made to run concurrently.

Three points which fall for determination in this appeal are: whether the accused was a somnambulist at the time of the commission of the offences; secondly, whether somnambulism would amount to that insanity contemplated under section 84, Indian Penal Code; and thirdly, the scope and extent of the plea of insanity open to the accused in the circumstances of this case.

Point 1: It has not been shown as a fact that the accused was a somnambulist or a sleep-walker. P.W. 1 the husband of the accused first stated in chief examination:

“My wife had been possessed by bad devils in 1953. She was treated by magician and she became all right. After that she used to get bewitched at intervals. When she is treated she would get better. She was all right after delivery till about 4 days before the incident. From four-days before the incident she was not all right in her mind and had fever.”

Then he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Then he satted:

“I have not stated therein (Exhibit P-1 the complaint) that the accused was possessed by devils......I told the petition writer even before writing that my wife was insane.