Sumitra Bai vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4523 of 2023) @ DIARY NO. 26160 OF 2021

SUMITRA BAI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal challenges the concurrent judgment and

order dated 16th October 2014 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2013 thereby

Signature Not Verified convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2023.04.15 14:21:04 IST Reason: Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and the judgment and

1 order dated 1st August 2018 passed by the High Court of

Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2015,

thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant.

4. We have heard Shri Shri A. Sirajuddin, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Prachi

Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General (for short,

“AAG”) appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh.

5. Shri A. Sirajuddin submits that, from the materials

placed on record it would reveal that the appellant had no

intention to cause death of her father. He submits that the

evidence would clearly show that the deposition of PWs.1 to 4

would reveal that the appellant was mentally ill and was

brought to the house of PW.1-Mahipal for treating her. He

submits that the weapon alleged to have been used in the

crime i.e. a spade is also recovered from PW.1-Mahipal. He

further submits that the evidence itself would clearly show

that the weapon used was the one which was very much

available in the house of PW.1-Mahipal. He therefore,

submits that the present appellant is entitled to get benefit

under Section 84 of the IPC.

2

6. Ms. Prachi Mishra vehemently opposes the appeal. She

submits that, for granting benefit under Section 84 of the IPC

read with Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is

necessary for the accused to establish as to what was the

nature of mental illness and also to prove that the accused

was suffering from insanity, so as to disable an accused from

knowing as to what he/she was doing. In support of her

contention, Ms. Mishra, relies on the judgments of this Court

in the cases of Prem Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1, Bapu

alias Gujrat Singh v. State of Rajasthan2 and Surendra

Mishra v. State of Jharkhand3.

7. No doubt, that Ms. Mishra is right in relying on the

judgments of this Court, as cited above, which hold that, for

entitling an accused of the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC, it

is necessary for an accused to establish as to what was the

nature of mental ailment and also that the accused suffered

from insanity, which disabled the accused from knowing as

1 (2023) 3 SCC 372 2 (2007) 8 SCC 66 3 (2011) 11 SCC 495 3 to what he/she was doing.

8. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW.1-Mahipal

would reveal that the incident has taken place in his house.

His evidence would show that the accused-Sumitra Bai along

with the deceased-Mangal Sai, who was her father, had come

to the house of PW.1-Mahipal for treating her mental

ailment. He states that in the evening of the date of the

occurrence, while they were lighting fire for cooking dinner in

their courtyard, the accused picked up the spade (fawda)

and assaulted the deceased-Mangal Sai on his head. PW.1-

Mahipal further states that when his son-Tilsai returned

home, he saw that the accused had already assaulted and

killed the deceased-Mangal Sai, after which PW.1-Mahipal

entered and saw Mangal Sai lying dead.

9. PW.1-Mahipal has admitted in his cross-examination

that the accused-Sumitra Bai was mentally insane. He has

further admitted that a lot of people come to him to be

treated for mental illness. He has further admitted that he

did not see the accused assaulting the deceased. He 4 admitted that since he had not witnessed the incident, he

could not state anything about the same.

10. PW.3-Tilsai is the son of PW.1-Mahipal. He also states

that when he came home after washing his hands and feet,

he had seen that the accused had assaulted and killed

Mangal Sai, on which he screamed and his parents came

hearing him. He has also admitted in his evidence that the

accused and her father-Mangal Sai had been staying there

for approximately one and a half months. He further

admitted that mentally ill people come to his house for

treatment. He has admitted that the spade used in the

incident belongs to them.

11. PW.4-Ajay is the son of the deceased and the brother of

the present appellant. He also admitted that the appellant-

Sumitra Bai was mentally ill and that she was brought by

Mangal Sai for treatment at the house of PW.1-Mahipal.

12. It could thus be seen that, neither of the witnesses have

seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. However, since 5 the appellant herself does not dispute the fact that the

deceased was assaulted by her, we do not find it necessary to

go into that question.

13. The only question that requires to be considered is

whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond

reasonable doubt for conviction under Section 302 of the

IPC.

14. Admittedly, the incident has occurred in the house of

PW.1-Mahipal, when only the deceased-Mangal Sai and the

appellant-Sumitra Bai were there. It is only after the

incident had occurred, when PW.3-Tilsai came to the house,

noticed it and after his shout, PW.1-Mahipal had arrived at

the spot.

15. The fact that, the appellant was brought to the house of

PW.1-Mahipal for her treatment on account of her mental

ailment, has been established by the evidence of PW.1-

Mahipal, PW.3-Tilsai and PW.4-Ajay. It is also not in dispute

that the appellant has used the spade, which was very much 6 available in the house of PWs.1 and 2.

16. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has failed to

prove the real genesis of the incident. There is absolutely no

evidence to establish that the appellant had any motive to

commit the murder of her own father. On the contrary, her

father had brought her to the house of PW.1-Mahipal for

treating her mental ailment.

17. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has utterly

failed to establish that the act was done by the appellant,

with the intention to cause the death of the deceased.

18. We find that the case would fall under Part-I of Section

304 of the IPC and as such, conviction under Section 302 of

the IPC would not be tenable.

19. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the

conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to Part-I of

Section 304 of the IPC.

7

20. Since the appellant has been incarcerated for a period

of more than 12 years, we find that the said sentence would

subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under

Section 304, Part-I of the IPC.

21. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not

required in any other case.

22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

..............................J. (ARAVIND KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 10, 2023.

8