Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act grants immunity from criminal liability for suicide attempts if severe stress is presumed unless disproved.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No. 460/2011 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, challenging her conviction and sentence imposed under Sections

302 & 309 IPC by that court.

2. The prosecution case is that, due to some mental agony, which arose out of the marital life of the accused, on 1/12/2010 at about 10 pm the accused committed murder of her son by name Sreehari aged about 3¾ months by smothering him using her hands and thereafter attempted to commit suicide by inflicting cut injuries on her body, by using a steel blade. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and

309 of IPC .

3. On filing of the final report, cognizance of the offences was taken by the Sessions Court on 12/7/2011 and the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Court-IV for trial and disposal. On appearance of the accused, the trial court after hearing both sides, framed charges against her under Sections 302 and 309 IPC .on 26/9/2015. Thereafter, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW15 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P17 documents and MO1 to MO8 were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against her in evidence and contended that she is innocent. She stated that someone has trespassed into her house and has killed her son and inflicted injuries upon her. From the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, by judgement dated 8.11.2018, found the accused guilty and convicted her under and 309 . The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 302 .The accused was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 309 . In case of non payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Adv. K.V.Sabu assailed the impugned judgment by contending that no proper appreciation of evidence was done by the trial court and that even in the absence of evidence, the accused has been convicted. He argued that all the material witnesses have turned hostile and there is no evidence to show that the accused has killed her child or that she has attempted to commit suicide. He also argued that, it has come out in evidence that the kitchen door was open at the relevant time and the prosecution has not investigated and ruled out the possibility of another person committing the acts. He further, by relying on the decision in K.M.Sujith v. State of Kerala (Crl.Appeal No.1705 of 2005 dated 21/10/2009), contended that the trial court had wrongly placed the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act upon the accused without even proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the prosecution has not produced the chemical examination report of the weapon allegedly used in the crime and the medical evidence is not conclusive. He also, by relying on the decision inBabu v. State of Kerala [ (2010) 9 SCC 189 ], argued that since the prosecution has not proved the motive for the crime, the conviction cannot be sustained. He further submitted that the entire prosecution in this case has to fail in the light of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 . Hence, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Adv.Neema contended that the prosecution has proved its ca