KALPANA PATGIRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for another two months vide judgment and order dated 8.10.2010 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 192/2007. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same the appellant is before us in appeal challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence. The prosecution story is based on a written first information report lodged by PW 2 who informed the police that his wife killed their one year old girl baby on 18.5.2005 at around 12 noon by strangulation and she herself attempted to commit suicide by hanging by means of a piece of cloth inside the house, who was discovered in an unconscious state and removed to hospital. The FIR was lodged while she was under treatment in the hospital. In the FIR it is mentioned that she was under psychiatric treatment for last 3 years. Thus the Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 91 of 2005 was registered under Section 302 IPC. Investigation was taken up. The I.O., PW 13, visited the place of occurrence, examined several witnesses including some neighbours, held inquest on the dead body, prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after completion of investigation, collected post mortem report. On his transfer the charge -sheet was submitted by Shri Amit Sutradhar, S.I. of Police against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 IPC, read over and explained the charge to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the convict appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(3.) MR . B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is not only non reading and mis -reading of evidence on record but also non -appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly the evidence that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder or mental disease and that the offence was committed while she was suffering from such mental disorder or disease due to which she is entitled to benefit of law under Section 84 IPC. In furtherance to above argument, he submits that the appellant, even if it is found that she killed her own infant daughter, learned trial Court should have acquitted her as she was suffering from mental illness/disorder as stated in the FIR itself which was filed by none other than the appellant's husband.