Supreme Court orders release of mother who killed daughters under influence of "invisible power"

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered release of a woman who had killed her two young daughters with an iron crowbar in 2015 [Chunni Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh].A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh said that temporary lapse of judgmental power bordering on temporary insanity cannot be completely ruled out in the caseHence, it converted the woman’s conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.The Court noted that she has already undergone a custody of over nine years and 10 months and thus ordered her immediate release."Upon her conviction under Part II of Section 304 IPC as above, as she has already undergone more than 9 (nine) years and 10 (ten) months of sentence, we sentence the appellant to the period already undertaken by her without any fine," it ruled..In 2015, the woman in Bharadkala village of Chhattisgarh had assaulted her two daughters, aged 3 and 5 years, with an iron crowbar, resulting in their deaths. The crime was witnessed by her sister-in-law, who testified to seeing the assault and hearing the woman shout that she was killing her children.Following the incident, the trial court convicted the woman for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court later upheld the conviction and sentence. She then approached the Supreme Court, contending that she was not in a proper mental state at the time and had acted under the influence of an “invisible power.”.The top court noted that while the homicide was established beyond doubt, the question of intention behind the act remained open, especially given the circumstances of the case.Highlighting the absence of motive and the surrounding circumstances, the Court said that the woman’s claim of an invisible influence, though lacking medical corroboration, could not be brushed aside. It observed that many mental health disorders in rural India go undiagnosed and untreated, often leading to tragic outcomes misattributed to superstitions.“In the present case, and also keeping in mind that the incident happened in a rural setting and the appellant not being highly educated, the possibility of confusing her unstable mental condition or temporary lapse of judgmental power bordering on temporary insanity cannot be completely ruled out which the appellant attributed as coming under the influence of invisible power, for the purpose of giving a benefit of doubt about the non-existence of “intention”," the Court noted in its judgement. .Further, it said that the woman had a loving relationship with her children and family and there was no evidence of any domestic discord or financial motive that could explain the crime..The Court emphasized that when accused persons cite bizarre or inexplicable circumstances such as influence of invisible forces, trial courts should actively probe such claims by using powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.“This assumes great importance when the accused pleads existence of certain circumstances which are beyond his/her control and which may indicate unsoundness of mind even temporarily, incapacitating the accused to take a conscious and informed decision,” it said..Further, the Court highlighted the lack of awareness about mental health disorders in rural India. "It is not common for rustic persons to be aware of various mental disorders/illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, that may temporarily impair the mental condition of an individual. More often than not, these disorders are unrecognised and remain untreated as it may be difficult to identify the 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," the Court noted. .Given the absence of conclusive medical evidence of insanity but the presence of surrounding doubts, the Court held that the prosecution had not proven intention beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, it altered the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder..The petitioner was represented by Advocate S Mahendran. The State was represented by Advocates Prerna Dhall, Akansha Singh, Shivam Ganeshia, Ambuj Swaroop and Prashant Singh. .[Read Judgment]