Mental Ailment Like Depression & Schizoid Features Not Necessarily Come Within Exception U/S 84 IPC: Kerala HC Upholds Murder Conviction

The Kerala High Court while upholding the conviction in murder case, observed that a mental ailment like depression and schizoid features not necessarily come within the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Sessions Court by which she was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing nepoticide.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish held, “We are of the opinion that the appellant though suffered from a mental ailment like depression and schizoid features even before and after the incident but from that, one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of probabilities that the appellant at the time of the commission of the offence did not know the nature of her act; that it was either wrong or contrary to law. In our opinion, the plea of the appellant does not come within the exception contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Advocate Nandagopal S. Kurup appeared for the appellant/accused while Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) Neema T.V. appeared for the respondent/State.

Factual Background -

As per the prosecution case, the appellant-accused worked as a nurse for over three decades. She was married and had three children and all of them were employed. One day in 2013, she arrived from Bombay, where she was then working, at her parental home. She approached her father and requested Rs. 15 lakhs to which he informed her that he had already set apart properties for his two daughters and suggested that she was free to sell her share and secure the amount. She had bought chocolates to give it to Rahul (deceased 12-year-old boy) and she stayed in the room where the grandmother usually slept with the deceased. Her father slept on a cot in the sit-out and the door of the room where the accused and deceased slept, was locked from inside by Rahul. At around 3 a.m., when Kamalakshi woke up to quench her thirst, she found that the lights were switched on and heard the accused speaking to someone.

When asked what had happened, the accused allegedly stated that she had murdered Rahul and was reporting the incident to the police. According to the prosecution, the accused strangled the boy with her pyjama string while he slept. While she was in judicial custody, her husband filed an application before the Magistrate requesting that she be provided medicine for her mental ailments, however, no medicines were found in the personal belongings of the accused nor did the husband produced any records showing that she was undergoing treatment for mental ailments so as to raise a defence of legal insanity. Thereafter, the Sessions Court convicted the accused and being aggrieved, she was before the High Court.

The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “As held in Dahyabhai (supra), there is a rebuttable presumption that the appellant was not insane, when she committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code. It is for the appellant to rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence — oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. The evidence let in by the appellant will only go to show that she was suffering from depression during phases and that she had undergone treatment for the same. She had been living the life of a normal lady and was employed all through her life. None of the family members have stated that they have noticed anything abnormal about the appellant.”

The Court added that though the appellant has three grownup children and a husband, none of them have mounted the box to state that they are aware that the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind and that they had experienced any such behaviour at any point of time.

“No evidence has been let in, either oral or documentary, to substantiate that the appellant was suffering from any unsoundness of mind and that she was either incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by her or that she was incapable of knowing that what she was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The appellant has not been able to even raise any doubt as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the appellant. On the day of the incident, the appellant had travelled from Mumbai, interacted normally with her parents and others, and displayed no signs of mental or cognitive impairment”, it said.

Furthermore, the Court enunciated that the crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 is the time when the offence was committed.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the finding of the Trial Court convicting the appellant of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 is not liable to be interfered with.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Cause Title- Vijayamma v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:76518)

Click here to read/download the Judgment