WX Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Fast Track Court, Shahdara District in Sessions Case No. 2/2011 arising out of an FIR No. 311/2010 registered at Police Station ('PS') Madhu Vihar convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). The appeal is also directed against the impugned order on sentence dated 28th May, 2016 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The Appellant was charged with having murdered her eight year old nephew ('the deceased') between 3.30 and 5 pm on 12th September, 2010 on the roof of an apartment complex in IP Extension, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Madhu Vihar.

(3.) It must be noted at the outset that the trial court has, in the impugned judgment, rejected the Appellant's defence under Section 84 IPC, viz., that at the time that the crime was committed, she was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. However, when the present appeal was heard by this Court, the Appellant filed Crl. MA No. 16490/2016 under Section 391 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr PC') for leading further evidence. The Appellant in this application placed reliance on the record of HMA No. 422/2011 which was a petition filed in the Family Court by her husband (DW-3) seeking dissolution of her marriage with him. In that divorce petition, the records of the treatment received by the Appellant for her mental condition were filed. The Appellant also sought to rely upon the pleadings in GP No. 13/2011 which was a guardianship petition filed by her seeking the custody of her two children. This was dismissed on 7th August, 2010 on account of her mental condition. Before this Court, the State filed a status report confirming that the Appellant had been receiving treatment in various hospitals for her mental illness. In the trial court in the present case, one of her treating doctors was examined as PW-22 to prove the treatment received by the Appellant. 4. By an order dated 29th November 2016 this Court allowed the Appellant's application Crl M A No. 16490 of 2016 and directed as follows: