SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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 quietly, without weeping or laughing and without making any effort to conceal the child or to run away and she did not say anything to any of those persons. P.W. 4, who was living in another portion in the same premises, further stated that he had heard that she had earlier in the year gone to Jaipur for treatment and about one month before the occurrence, the appellant would sometimes laugh without reason and sometimes weep without reason and she was not insane, but she was suffering from some mental trouble. P.W. 6 also stated that when she removed the dhoti from the person of the appellant, she remained "gumsum" and she was neither laughing nor weeping. P.W. 9 was the person who was sent to take the photographs on the spot and he took the photographs at 5 p.m., on the same day. He deposed that when he went to take photographs, the appellant was present and she was sitting quiet, silent and she was neither excited nor in tears nor was she crying or sobbing. P.W. 10 was die Sub-Inspector of Police of Gandhinagar Police Station, who was entrusted with the investigation of the case. According to him, the appellant was present on the spot, sitting on a cot and she was replying to questions put to her, but otherwise she was quiet. Even he admitted that, excepting the name of the deceased, he did not ask any other thing from the appellant and during the two hours he was there, the appellant continued sitting there and she did nothing by way of concealing anything and she just sat quietly. P.W. 11 of the C.I.D. Special Staff and S.H.O., Police Station, Gandhinagar, who went to the spot at 4 p.m. on the same day, stated that when he reached the spot, the appellant was sitting in her room and she was alt right at that time and was replying to his questions. Even though he said that the appellant was perfectly in a sane condition when he interrogated her at the spot and there was nothing abnormal in her behaviour, he admitted that she was talking to him as if nothing had happened and she did not make any effort to conceal and to run. This was all the evidence available with respect to the condition and reaction of the appellant at the time of the occurrence.

(3.) There was evidence that prior to the occurrence, the appellant was admitted into the Mental Hospital, Jaipur, and was under treatment. Shri S. K. Pandey, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Mental Hospital, Jaipur, was examined as D.W. 3 and he stated that the appellant was admitted into the hospital on l7-1- 1965 and remained in the hospital up to 5-3- 1965, on which date she was discharged and that she was asked to come after a month for check-up. According to him, the record showed that she was suffering from Maniac Depressive Psychosis, a type of insanity. Dr. V. K. Vyas, Superintendent of that hospital was examined as D.W. 10. He had deposed that the appellant was suffering from Schizophrenic Psychosis, a type of insanity; it was an acute illness; she was talking incoherently; she had auditory and visual hallucinations; she was abusive; she was assaultive, throwing stones and trying to run away; in that state, she was not able to understand what she was doing and the consequences of her actions; she was suffering from insanity. He also stated that she was discharged on 5-3-1965 when she had recovered from her illness and at that time, she was quite all right and she was not abusive, nor violent and in cases of this type, he used to ask the patient to come up again since sometimes relapse takes place. There was the evidence of Dr. Ambresh Gupta, who was examined as D.W. 8, that even earlier in November 1964, she was under his treatment and she was too much talkative, talking all irrelevant matters and her general condition showed that she was insane and everything which she was doing was without reason and he judged that it was a case of insanity. Dr. R. M. Sehgal, who was examined as D.W. 2, stated that in April, 1965, the appellant was under his treatment and he had diagnosed her as a mental case and asked her husband to have a specialised treatment. According to him, at the time when he was consulted, she was not in a position to understand things as a normal man is expected to do and she did not know what she was talking about and she was answering his questions irrelevantly and it was an acute case when she came to him. This was all the evidence, in the form of medical evidence, about the mental condition of the appellant before the occurrence. Subsequent to the occurrence, she was examined and treated by Dr. S. B. Mathur, Psychiatrist, Mental Hospital, Central tail, Tihar, New Delhi. He was examined as D.W. 1. He deposed that the appellant came to the Central Jail on 30-4-1965, was referred to the Mental Hospital on 25-5-1965, under the orders of the Magistrate and she was sent for observations of her mental state; he submitted a report on 28-5-1965, wherein he had stated that she needed further observations and she was unfit for attending the Court. In his final report dated 10-6-1965, he stated that the was suffering from severe mental Schizophrenia and needed hospitalisation and treatment. According to him, it was difficult to say how long she had been suffering from this fliness and the illness could arise all of a sudden and also gradually and he could not give an answer to the question that how long gradually it would take to reach the stage at which he examined her. To a specific question put to him, as to whether he could exclude the possibility of such a mental illness and incapacity to understand being the culmination of the deterioration for a month or so, he gave a negative answer; obviously, this period was with reference to 10-6-1965 on which date he sent his final report about the mental condition of the appellant. This was the only evidence available with reference to the mental condition of the appellant, after the occurrence.