Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre
ITEM NO.110 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIC
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1227/2014
KOKAIYABAI YADAV Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
Date : 15/12/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohammad Mannan,Adv.(A.C.)
Ms. Sudha Gupta,Adv.(through SCLSC)
For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv.
For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
When this matter came up for hearing on 9th November, 2016, the following order was passed :
“Pursuant to our order dated 01.09.2016, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh has sent his report about the mental condition of the appellant. As per the said report, the appellant was examined in a Government Hospital and the conclusion of the Doctor is that she is not suffering from any psychiatric illness or perceptual disturbance or any formal thought disorder. To put it otherwise, it is stated that as far as mental condition of the appellant is concerned, she is normal and stable.Signature Not Verified
In the instant case, the charge against Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2016.12.16 the appellant was that she killed her daughter 16:55:00 IST Reason: Kumari Deepa aged about four years on 21.06.2003. From the record it is not discernible as to what could be the reason for 1 a mother to kill her daughter. She has already suffered 13 years of incarceration.
We are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mohammad Mannan who is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case shall visit the Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh where the appellant is lodged so that he is able to interact with her on the aforesaid aspect, inasmuch as we are of the prima facie view that her case for remission of further sentence needs to be considered by the State. In order to pass an effective order in this behalf, the aforesaid proposed interview/interaction by the learned Amicus Curiae with the appellant becomes necessary.
We request the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to make necessary arrangements for the aforesaid visit of Mr. Mohammad Mannan, Amicus Curiae. If possible, a lady advocate on the panel of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee can also be deputed to accompany the Amicus Curiae.
List the matter in the second week of
December, 2016.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Mr. Mohammad Mannan, learned Amicus Curiae, visited the Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, along with Ms. Sudha Gupta, learned counsel, who was deputed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Compliance reports are submitted by the Amicus Curiae, as well as by Ms. Sudha Gupta. On going through these reports, it transpires that they had met the appellant, since she is lodged in a cell with four other female prisoners, and that Ms. Sudha Gupta had even interacted with those female prisoners as well. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, she informed Ms. Sudha Gupta that she did not even remember anything about 2 the incident of 2003. Other four female prisoners told Ms. Sudha Gupta that when the appellant was brought to the Central Jail in 2003, all of them were already in the jail. They found that the appellant was not in a sound mental condition and was not in her senses. She had to be force-fed, given bath like a child and would not react in spite of being undressed completely. She even did not interact with anybody and was oblivious of her surroundings. Going by this condition of the appellant, the jail authorities had sent her to a mental asylum where she was treated for some time. However, the jail authorities did not show the medical record of the appellant of 2003. With the passage of time her mental condition has improved and that is why the latest medical report shows that she is not suffering from any psychiatric illness or perceptual disturbance or any formal thought disorder and that she is, in fact, normal and stable. The jail authorities also informed Mr. Mannan and Ms. Sudha Gupta that her conduct has remained steadfast all this period. She has now been given the responsibility of supervising the female prisoners. She even started her education in jail and has now cleared Class VIII examination. She has also learnt sewing and embroidery in the jail as well as Yoga, which she practices regularly. She has even participated in Nukkad Natak (street play).
From the aforesaid, this Court gets an impression 3 that even if it is to be presumed that the appellant had committed the murder of her daughter, who was four years of age at that time, in all likelihood, she was not in a proper mental condition at that time and, therefore, was unaware as to what she was doing. We can arrive at this reasoning not solely relying on the aforesaid report of Ms. Sudha Gupta which contains her interaction with the four female inmates but also by reflecting on the inconceivable nature of the crime, of a mother, who seemingly without any reason took the life of her child.
The ordeal stirring in the mind of a mother that would compel her to kill her own child is beyond comprehension for most people. Such a crime has the capacity of shaking us to the core as for it is unfathomable to think that someone who gives life, shelter and protects is the same person who for no justification can end that same life thereby shattering a part of her soul. Some psychologists have accounted for extreme depression, a psychotic breakdown or even violence at home. A mother who finds herself in extreme social adversity incapable of providing for her children may also be driven by unknown circumstances thinking that such a drastic step is her only viable option. In this case, however, the reason that made a mother take such a course is overlaid with a thick blanket of mystery.
In such circumstances, had she been medically examined at that time when she was facing trial, probably 4 the aforesaid facts would have come on record and some light would have been shed on the circumstances. To this extent, there appears to be some failure on the part of the trial court, who should have shown due diligence when the appellant was appearing before him. Be that as it may, since the appellant has already suffered actual incarceration for more than 13 years and the period may come to 17-18 years, if the remission for holidays etc. is counted, having regard to the sentence for which the appellant is in the jail, and improvement shown, as highlighted above, we feel that this is a fit case where remission regarding rest of the sentence of the appellant is granted by the State Government/competent authority.
If the object of our justice system is to reform the criminal, the appellant's exemplary conduct has aptly fit the bracket. Punishment can be used as a method of reducing the incidence of criminal behaviour either by incapacitating and preventing them from repeating the offence or by reforming them into law abiding citizens. Reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing, are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and nurtured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world have the capacity of humanising this world. The crime was a result of a conflict between the motive of the mother and her character, with the motive triumphing. However, the 13 years she has spent in the prison, she has built her character moulding it by 5 educating herself and learning the ways of life. The reformed appellant will be able to add value to the life of her now 15 year old son, by taking what she has learnt in these past few years and living by it.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also very fairly agreed to the aforesaid suggestion having regard to the circumstances of this case. He, therefore, wants a short adjournment to take up the matter with the concerned authorities.
We, accordingly, adjourn the matter to 9th January, 2017, as Part-heard.
(Sarita Purohit) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
*Copy of this order be given dasti.
6