Kerala High Court
Rollymol vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2024
Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1
: 2024:KER:95159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 17
DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.A NO. 964 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2020 IN SC NO.613 OF 2018 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV, THODUPUZHA
APPELLANT
/ACCUSED:
OLLYMOL
R
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. JOY, KUNTHAMCHARIYIL,
AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
F.C NO.246, WOMENS PRISON, VIYOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680010.
BY ADV MANJU ANTONEY
RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2
: 2024:KER:95159
BY SMT. NEEMA T.V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIS
T CRIMINAL
APPEAL
HAVING
COME
UP
FOR
FINAL
HEARING
ON
17.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :3
: 2024:KER:95159
"CR"
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
TheaboveappealhasbeenpreferredbythesoleaccusedinS.C.No.613 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thodupuzha. In the above case, the appellant, a lady aged 39/18 years is accused of having committed maternal filicide. Prosecution Case: 2. The case of theprosecutionisthattheappellanthadtwochildren in her marriage with PW1. The elder child is autistic. The younger child (Alex) was 1½ years of age when the alleged incident had taken place. The prosecution alleges that PW1 was a Mason by profession and was engagedby PW5,theuncleoftheappellant,tocarryoutsomeworkinhisresidentialhome. Theappellant,herhusband,andtwochildrenwereresidingatthehousebearing No. U.G.P. XI/265, which belonged to Peermedu Tea Company, Puthukkada Bhagam, Laundry Kara, Upputhara Village. The prosecution case is that on 18.04.2018,atabout6:30p.m.,theappellantwithintenttomurderheryounger son, pressed his neck and thereby strangulated him. Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :4 : 2024:KER:95159 Registration of the Crime: 3. Joy (PW1), the husband of the appellant, went to the Upputhara Police Station on 18.04.2018 at 11:50 p.m. and lodged a statement, based on whichExt.P7FIRwasregisteredasCrimeNo.157of2018underSection174of the Cr.P.C. on 19.04.2018. Itwouldbepertinenttonoteatthisjuncturethatat thetimeoffurnishingthestatement,thecaseoftheinformantwasthathisson had fallen from the cot and had suffered certain injuries, and thoughthechild was taken to the St.John's Hospital, Kattappana, his life could not be saved. Investigation: 4. The investigation was taken over by the Sub Inspector of Police, UpputharaPoliceStation.HesubmittedareportincorporatingSection302ofthe IPC.Hewenttothespotat11:30a.m.,on19.04.2018,andpreparedtheScene Mahazar. The autopsy of the child was conducted which revealed that constrictiveforcewasinflictedontheneckandthatthedeathofthechildwasa case of homicide. On 06.05.2018, the accused was arrested as per Ext.P10 Arrest Memo. The investigation was then taken over by PW18, whocompleted the investigation and laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattappana for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :5 : 2024:KER:95159 5. Committal proceedings were initiated in accordance with the law, andthecasewascommittedtotheCourtofSession.Thecasewasmadeoverto the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. Trial Proceedings: 6. On the appearance of the accused, when the charge wasreadto theaccused,shepleadednotguiltyandclaimedthatshebetriedinaccordance with the law. 7. In order toproveitscase,theprosecutionexamined16witnesses asPWs1to16,throughthem,Exts.P1toP14wereexhibitedandmarked.MO1 series clothes were produced and identified. 8. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising out of the evidence were put to the accused. She denied all the circumstances and maintained her innocence. She stated that her child had fallenfromthecotandhadsufferedinjuries.Sheassertedthatshewassuffering frommentaldisordersandthatshewasconsumingmedicinesforthesame.The accusedwasthencalledupontoenterherdefence.Onherside,Dr.VSatheesh, theProfessorandHeadofthePsychiatricDepartment,MedicalCollegeHospital, Kottayam was examined as DW1, and through him, Ext. D2 was marked. Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :6 : 2024:KER:95159 Findings of the learned Sessions Judge: 9. ThelearnedSessionsJudge,afterevaluationoftheevidenceletin, came to the conclusion that the accused had committed the murder of her youngersonbythrottlinghim.Toarriveatthefollowingconclusion,thefollowing findings were arrived at: a) The claim raised by the defence that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder was rejected for herfailuretoadducereliableevidenceto substantiate the same. b) The Court observed that the evidence clearlyestablishedtheaccusedwas last seen with the deceased only moments before he was found dead. c) ThecourtheldthattheconfessionallegedlymadebytheaccusedtoPWs1 and 7 was credible. d) The confession was further corroborated by medical evidence, which confirmedthatthecauseofdeathwasduetotheconstrictingforceapplied by the accused on the neck of the deceased. Rival contentions raised before us: 10. Sri. Anoop C. C, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :7 : 2024:KER:95159 submitted that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unsustainablein law. He advanced the following submissions to substantiate his contention. a) In the First Information Statement furnished by PW1, it was emphatically stated that the appellant and her elder son were suffering from a mental disorder and were undergoing treatment for the same. There were materials suggesting that the accused had been suffering from psychotic delusions even prior to the incident. However, the investigating officer suppressed the said materials and even persuaded PW1 to resilefromhis earlierversionandsuppressthemedicaltreatmentandrecordsthatwerein his exclusive possession. This has resulted in serious prejudice. b) The evidence of DW1, the Head of Department, Psychiatry cemented the factthattheappellanthadbeensufferingfromamentaldisorder,including delusions and psychotic episodes,forapproximatelyeightyearsbeforethe incident.Healsostatedthatthereiseverylikelihoodthatshewasunaware of the nature of her acts when the incident happened. c) Relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court inBapu@Gajraj Singhv.StateOfRajasthan1,thelearnedcounselarguedthatthefailure of the investigating officer to conduct a fair investigation into the mental 1 [(2007) 8 SCC 66] Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :8 : 2024:KER:95159 condition of the accused is a serious lapse on his part. d) The learned counsel referred to decisions in Shibu v. State of Kerala2, AjiDevassyv.StateofKerala3,andRejiThomas@Vayalarv.State ofKerala4, tohighlightthatitisthedutyofanhonestinvestigatingofficer to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately andpresent the evidence before the Court. The failure to conduct such an inquiry createsaseriousinfirmityintheprosecution'scaseandwarrantsextending the benefit of the doubt to the accused. 11. The learned PublicProsecutorsubmittedthatthelearnedSessions Judge had properly evaluated thefacts,circumstances,andevidencepresented in the case before arriving at the finding of guilt. To buttress her submissions, the following contentions were advanced: a) The defence cannot merely claim that the appellant was suffering from a mentaldisordertoavailtheexceptionunderSection84oftheIPC.Itmust demonstrate that the physical and mental ailments from which the appellantsufferedrenderedherintellectsoweakthatshewasincapableof understanding the nature of her actions. No such circumstancewasmade 2 [2013 (4) KLT 323] 3 [2023 KHC 9420] 4 [2023 KHC 556] Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :9 : 2024:KER:95159 out in the instant case b) Reliance was placed on Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs The State of Maharashtra5,anditwasurgedthatamereabnormalityofmindorpartial delusion will not suffice to invoke the protection under Section 84 of the IPC. c) PW1clearlystatedthattheaccusedwassaneandwasnotundergoingany treatment for mentalillnessandthereisnoreasontodisbelievehim.PW1 and PW7 had also stated that the accused divulged to themthatshehad smothered the boy todeath.Theevidencetenderedbythesaidwitnesses was rightly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at the finding of guilt. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions advancedandhave gone through the entire records. Evaluation of the evidence: 13. Thefactthatthechildoftheaccusedhaddiedofhomicide,isnota factthatisdisputed.Inordertoprovethesame,theprosecutionexaminedPW9, who is the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon at the Medical 5 [(1973) 4 SCC 79] Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 0: 2024:KER:95159 CollegeHospital,Kottayam.Hestatedbeforethecourtthathehadexaminedthe child, aged 1½ years old, involved in Crime No. 157/2018 on 19.04.2018 and had noted fiveinjuries.Hestatedthatthepostmortemfindingswereconsistent withthedeathduetoconstrictingforceovertheneck.HeaddedthatInjuryNos. 1 to 4 could be caused by manual strangulation. In cross-examination, the learned counsel appearing for the accused put a question to the Doctor as to whether Injury No.5 could be caused by holding onto the neck. The Doctor responded that it was not possible for the child to sustain an injury in that manner. Thus, from the evidence of PW9, the prosecution has established beyondanysemblanceofdoubtthattheconstrictingforcewasappliedoverthe neckofthechildleadingtohisdeath.Beforepartingwiththeevidence,itwould be apposite to refer to injury No. 5 noted by the Doctor. Contusionofscalp1.3x1x0.5cm,rightsideofbackofhead,3cmaboverightear, 8 cm outer to midline. We have referred to injury No. 5, as the case ofthedefenceisthatthe child had fallen from the cot, which ultimately resulted in his death. The evidenceadducedbytheDoctorwouldemphaticallyshowthatthefallingofthe child from the cot is not the cause of his death. 14. Now, we shall come to the evidence tendered by the prosecution Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 1: 2024:KER:95159 witnesses to establish guilt. As we have stated earlier, the learned Sessions JudgehasmainlyreliedontheevidenceofPWs1and6toarriveatthefinding of guilt. Though the elder childoftheaccusedwasexaminedasawitness,the court was not inclined to believe his version. 15. When examined as PW1, the husband of the accused stated that he,alongwithhisfamily,hadgonetothehouseofPW4,whoisnoneotherthan the uncle of the accused, tocarryoutsomeconstructionwork.On18.04.2018, early in the morning, he went out for work. At about 6:00 p.m., Lalu's (PW4) wife (CW11) called him up and informed him that hischildhadfallenfromthe cot and had sustained certain injuries, and he had been taken to St. John's Hospital,Kattappana.Uponreceivingtheinformation,herushedtothehospital. Onreachingthere,hefoundthathischildhadalreadyexpired.Hethenwentto thePoliceStation,Upputhara,andlodgedinformation,basedonwhichthecrime wasregistered.Hestatedthattwodaysafter theincident,theaccusedtoldhim that she had strangulatedthechild.Hestatedthathiselderchildwassuffering fromamentaldisorder,andhiswifeusedtosayonceinawhilethatshewanted to end her life and that of the elder child. He also stated that his wife had attempted to commit suicide byjumpingintothewell.Heidentifiedtheclothes worn by the child, which is marked as MO1 series. In cross-examination, he Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 2: 2024:KER:95159 admittedthathiselderchildwassufferingfromamentaldisorder.Whenhewas asked whetherhiswifewassufferingfromanymentaldisorder,heemphatically denied the same. However, he stated that he was aware of the fact that the elder brother of his wife was suffering from a mentaldisorder.Whenaspecific question was put astowhetherhehadstatedintheFIstatementthathiswife wassufferingfromamentaldisorderandthatshewastakingmedicinesforthe same, he answered in the affirmative. He also admitted that while giving his statementtothepolice,hehadstatedthatthemedicalrecordspertainingtohis wifewouldbeproducedbeforethepolice,andbysayingso,hehadconsoledhis wife.Whenhewasaskedwhetherhiswifewassufferingfromamentaldisorder prior to, during, and subsequent to the incident, he stated that, after the incident,hiswifehadjumpedintoawellandthereafter,shewasadmittedtothe Psychiatric Department of theMedicalCollegeHospital.Hedeniedthatshehad undergone any treatment prior to the incident. 16. PW2 is one Preethy. She stated before the Court that she was acquainted with the accused as well as the deceased. She stated that on 18.04.2018at6:15p.m.,shesawtheaccusedstandingonthedoorstepsofthe house in which she was residing, with the younger child on her lap. At about 6:30 p.m., while she was talking to a lady, the accused came running towards Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 3: 2024:KER:95159 her and told her that her minor child had fallen from the cot and that he was lying unconscious. The witness, along with one Alice (CW3) and her husband, rushed to the house, where the child was lying. She found that the child was unconscious. Alice lifted up the child and took her to the hospital. Later that night, she was told that the child was no more. 17. PW3, Reena @ AnumolGeorge,isaneighboroftheaccused.She stated that on 18.04.2018, at about 6:30 p.m., she heard a loud cry. She saw that PW2, CW3, and CW5 were rushing out of the house of the accused, and CW3 was carrying the child. She stated that when she enquired,Alicetoldher that the accused informed her that the child had fallen from the cot, and had suffered certain injuries on his head. The child was taken to the Community Health Centre, in the vehicle of PW4. However, the Doctor directed them to a higher Centre. The child was accordingly taken to St. John's Hospital, Kattappana, where after examining the child, he was pronounced dead. She stated that the Doctors had expressed certain doubts as regards the cause of death. 18. PW4isthedriverofthevehicleinwhichthechildwastakentothe hospital. He was also an attestor to the Ext.P2 inquest report. 19. PW5 is one Lalu, the uncle of the accused. He stated that the Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 4: 2024:KER:95159 incident had happenedinhishouse.Accordingtohim,on18.04.2018,between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., he received a phone call and was informed that the younger child of the accused had fallen from the cot and was taken to the hospital,andlaterhewaspronounceddead.Healsostatedthatat5:30p.m.,on 18.04.2018, the accused had called him up on his mobile phone and enquired about his arrival. He went on to say that he had enquired about the cause of death to the elder son of the accused, who hadtoldhimthattheaccusedhad smothered his brother. 20. PW7 is Sarala, who stated that she is having close acquaintance with the accused and the deceased. She stated that on 18.04.2018, at about 6:00p.m.,theaccusedapproachedher,anddemandedthatshebepermittedto make acalltoPW5,usinghermobilephone.Shespokeabouttheconversation that the accused had with PW5. She stated that after some time, she hearda cry,andwhensheenquired,shewastoldthattheyoungerchildoftheaccused had fallen fromthecotandhadsustainedcertaininjuries.Shestatedthatafter some time, she went to the house of the accused and found that theaccused wassittingintheroomandcrying.Whensheaskedtheaccused,sheisalleged to have confessed that she had killed her child by smothering his neck. 21. The prosecution also examined the elder son of the accusedwith Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 5: 2024:KER:95159 the assistance of an interpreter. The learned Sessions Judge, who noted the demeanor of the witness, was not prepared to accept hisevidence.Wedonot thinkthathisevidencewillinanywayhelptheprosecutiontocanvassafinding of guilt against the accused. 22. Now we shall deal with the version of the defence. While being examined underSection313oftheCr.P.C.,theaccusedreiteratedthatthechild had fallen from the cot, leading to his death. 23. Now we shall deal with the evidence of DW1,whowasexamined onthesideoftheaccused,toprovethattheaccusedwassufferingfrommental disorder. DW1 is none other than the Professor and Head of the Psychiatric Department, at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Hestatedthattheaccused was admitted to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, as an inpatient, from 21.04.2018 to 28.04.2018. Shehadjumpedintoawellandhadsufferedpartial drowning. He stated that he had noted the family history of psychiatric illness and found that the grandmother, mother, maternal first cousin, and her elder brother also hadpsychiatricailments.ShewasinthePsychiatricWardfollowing the fall into a well. His first diagnosis was that the accused was having depression with psychotic symptoms. He stated that the symptoms had not occurred asasuddenone,butitwasgradual.Whenaquestionwasputtohim Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 6: 2024:KER:95159 astowhethertheillnesssufferedbytheaccusedmayleadtoviolence,hestated thatgenerallyitisnotthecase,buttherecanbesomevariations.Hestatedthat during the treatment, he hadnotnotedanyviolentbehavioronthepartofthe accused. He stated that depression with psychotic symptoms causes delusion, and she was also having hallucinations. He stated that, as she was suffering from this disease, veryclosetotheincident,shemighthavebeensufferingthe same even at thetimeoftheincident.Toaspecificquestionastowhetherthe person suffering from this illness can rationally think about what she is doing, the Doctor responded that the patient's thinking is impaired and that she may notbeawareoftheconsequencesofthecrime.Hestatedaboutthepasthistory of behavior abnormality, after the delivery. He stated from the history that he noted,itwasseenthatin2007,therewasahistoryofbehaviorabnormalityand she was treated in Paduva Hospital. However, there were no records produced before him to substantiate the same. 24. Whileevaluatingtheevidenceadducedbytheprosecution,itneeds to be noticed that this is a case wherein, the mother is alleged to have committed strangulation of a 1½ years old child. In the First Information Statement furnishedbythehusband(PW1),on19.04.2018itself,hehadstated thathiswifeaswellashiselderson,weresufferingfromamentaldisorderand Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 7: 2024:KER:95159 that they were undergoing treatment for the same. It is undisputed that two days after the incident, on 21.04.2018, at 4:05 a.m., she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam after she had jumped into a well, in an attempt to commitsuicide.InExt.D2medicalrecordsoftheaccusedatMedical College Hospital, it hasbeenstatedthattheladywassufferingfrompsychiatric illnessandthattooforthepast8years.Itisalsostatedthatshehadundergone psychiatric treatment from Paduva Hospital, for the past 7 years. None of the family members of the accusedwascitedandexaminedbeforetheCourt.PW1 on the other hand, while tendering evidence, reneged from his earlier version andrefusedtoadmitthathiswifewassufferingfromanymentaldisorderorthat she was taking medicines for the same. What is discerniblefromtheaboveis that it was brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer that theaccused, who committed the murderofher1½yearsoldchildwithnoapparentmotive, wassufferingfrommentaldisorder.Hewasalsoawarethatthoughtheincident was on 18.4.2018, he was in a position to arrest the accused only on 06.05.2018, as she was admitted to the Psychiatric Ward, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. In spite of the above, no records were collected,norwere anywitnesses,includingthepsychiatristwhotreatedtheaccused,cited.Whilein the box, when the investigating officer was asked whether he conducted any investigationintothementalhealthoftheaccusedbeforefilingofthecharge,he Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 8: 2024:KER:95159 answered in the negative. The principles of law: 25. It would be apposite atthisjuncturetonoticethesettledposition of law when a plea of insanity is raised by the accused in a criminal trial. In DahyabhaiChhaganbhaiThakkarv.StateofGujarat6,theApexCourthad occasion to lay down the law as under: 5. Before we address ourselves to the facts of the case and the findings arrived atbytheHighCourt,itwouldbeconvenienttonoticethe relevant aspects of the law of the plea of insanity. At the outset let us consider the material provisions without reference to decided cases. The said provisions are: INDIAN PENAL CODE ection 299- Whoever causes death by doing an actwiththeintentionof S causingdeath,orwiththeintentionofcausingsuchbodilyinjuryasislikely tocausedeath,orwiththeknowledgethatheislikelybysuchacttocause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. ection84-Nothingisanoffencewhichisdonebyapersonwho,at S the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the natureoftheact,orthatheisdoingwhatiseitherwrongor contrary to law. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ection 105 - When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of S proving the existenceofcircumstancesbringingthecasewithinanyofthe General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or within any 6 [A IR 1964 SC 1563] Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :1 9: 2024:KER:95159 s pecialexceptionorprovisocontainedinanyotherpartofthesameCode, orinanylawdefiningtheoffence,isuponhim,andtheCourtshallpresume the absence of such circumstances. Section4 "Shallpresume".--WheneveritisdirectedbythisActthat the Court shall presume a fact,itshallregardsuchfactsasprovedunless and until it is disproved. " Proved"--Afactissaidtobe"proved'"whenafterconsideringthe matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable thataprudentmanought,underthecircumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. "Disproved"--Afactissaidtobedisprovedwhen,afterconsidering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under thecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,toactuponthesuppositionthatit does not exist. Section101-WhoeverdesiresanyCourttogivejudgment astoanylegalrightorliabilitydependentontheexistenceoffactwhichhe asserts,mustprovethatthosefactsexist.Whenapersonisboundtoprove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. I t is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused ispresumedtobeinnocentand,therefore,theburdenliesonthe prosecutiontoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.The prosecution,therefore,inacaseofhomicideshallprovebeyondreasonable doubtthattheaccusedcauseddeathwiththerequisiteintentiondescribed in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.Thisgeneralburdennevershifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as Section 84 of the Indian PenalCodeprovidesthatnothingisanoffenceiftheaccusedatthetimeof doingthatact,byreasonofunsoundnessofmindwasincapableofknowing thenatureofhisactorwhathewasdoingwaseitherwrongorcontraryto law. This being an exception, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence ofcircumstancesbringingthecasewithin the said exception lies on the accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in Section 4thereof,thecourt shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 0: 2024:KER:95159 c onsideringthemattersbeforeit,itbelievesthatsaidcircumstancesexisted or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances oftheparticularcase,toactuponthesuppositionthatthey did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudentmanwouldactuponthem.The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the material placed before the court such, as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of "prudent man", the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under Section105oftheEvidenceAct,butitmayraiseareasonabledoubtinthe mindofajudgeasregardsoneorotherofthenecessaryingredientsofthe offence itself.Itmay,forinstance,raiseareasonabledoubtinthemindof the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquittheaccused,forinthateventtheprosecutionwill have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution andwhichnevershifts,andthespecialburdenthatrestsontheaccusedto make out his defence of insanity. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 7. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committedthe offence with therequisitemensrea,andtheburdenofprovingthatalways restsontheprosecutionfromthebeginningtotheendofthetrial.(2)There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code : the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proofuponhimisnohigherthanthatrestsuponapartytocivilproceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusivelythathewas insaneatthetimehecommittedtheoffence,theevidenceplacedbeforethe courtbytheaccusedorbytheprosecutionmayraiseareasonabledoubtin the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence,includingmensreaoftheaccusedandinthatcasethecourtwould be entitled to acquittheaccusedonthegroundthatthegeneralburdenof Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 1: 2024:KER:95159 proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. 26. Under Section 84 of the IPC, a person isexoneratedfromliability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doingtheact,iseitherincapableofknowing(a)thenatureoftheactor(b)that heisdoingwhatiseitherwrongorcontrarytolaw.Theaccusedisprotectednot onlywhen,onaccountofinsanity,hewasincapableofknowingthenatureofthe act,butalsowhenhedidnotknoweitherthattheactwaswrongorthatitwas contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however,notprotectedifheknewthatwhathewasdoingwaswrong,evenifhe did not knowthatitwascontrarytolaw,andalsoifheknewthatwhathewas doingwascontrarytolaweventhoughhedidnotknowthatitwaswrong.The onus of proving unsoundness ofmindisontheaccused.But,whereduringthe investigation previous history of insanity is revealed,itisthedutyofanhonest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidencebeforethecourt,andifthisisnotdone,itcreatesaseriousinfirmityin the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be giventotheaccused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly priortotheoffenceandhisconductatthetime or immediately afterward, also by evidence of his mental condition and other Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 2: 2024:KER:95159 relevantfactors.Everypersonispresumedtoknowthenaturalconsequencesof his act. Similarly, every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution hasnotestablishedthesefacts.(See:SidhapalKamalaYadavv. State of Maharashtra7) ( emphasis supplied) 27. InShibu(supra),aDivisionBenchofthisCourt,afterinterpreting the principles of law laid down in previous precedents and afterexaminingthe provisions of Sections 6, 84, and 300 of the IPC, observed that whenever an offenceundertheIPCisallegedlycommitted,theinvestigatingofficermustfirst satisfy themselves that the alleged act constitutes an offence asdefinedunder theIPC.TheCourtemphasizedthatincaseswhereinappropriate,extraordinary, or strange behavior of the accused is observed, or wherethemannerinwhich theoffenceiscommittedraisesareasonabledoubt,belief,orstrongsuspicionof a mental health issue, the investigating officer must inevitably investigate the mentalstateoftheaccused.Thisincludesascertainingwhethertheaccusedhas a history of mental health issues and ensuring the accused is examined by a psychiatrist at the earliest opportunity to determine whether they were acting underunsoundnessofmindatthetimeoftheincidentandwereunawareofthe natureoftheiractions.Theinvestigatingofficercannotandmustnotshirktheir responsibilitytoinvestigatesuchaspects,whichismandatedbySection6ofthe 7 (2009) 1 SCC 124) Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 3: 2024:KER:95159 IPC, requiring them to understand the definition of every offence subject to General Exceptions. This is because in cases where a General Exception may apply, acts committed by the accused might not constitute an offence under certaincircumstances.Thecauseoftheinappropriateorstrangebehaviorofthe accused must be thoroughly investigated to rule out the possibility of mental unsoundness or legal insanity. This Court further observed that if, during the investigation,theinvestigatingofficerlearnsfromrelatives,friends,orneighbors that the accused may have a mental health issue, the officer is obligated to investigate the mental condition of the accused. It was underscored that Sections 6, 84, and 300 IPC make it clearthatiftheinvestigatingofficer,upon inquiry, is satisfied that the accused'sactionsstillconstituteanoffence,despite indications of medical unsoundness, they may proceed to file a charge sheet--provided they are satisfied that the accused is not legally insane. This determinationmustbebasedonapsychiatricexaminationconductedduringthe investigation.Insuchcases,theaccusedmaystillestablishbeforetheCourtthat their case falls under Section 84 of the IPC, notwithstanding the investigating officer's findings. However, theburdenofproofundersuchcircumstancesshifts totheaccused,asstipulatedinSection105oftheEvidenceAct.ThisCourtalso clarified that the prosecution cannot discharge its burden of proof unless it establishesbeyondreasonabledoubtthementalstateandcriminalintentatthe Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 4: 2024:KER:95159 time of the offence. Even if the prosecution proves the alleged act, and the accused fails to establish a defence under Section 84 of the IPC, the accused may still be entitled to the benefit of the doubt if reasonable doubt arises regarding mens readuetoanyomissionbytheprosecutionorotherfactors.In other words, in such cases, the court is required to evaluate not only whether the accused committed the alleged act but also whether they possessed the requisite mens rea, irrespective of the defence plea under Section 84 of the IPC. 28. In the case on hand, from theFIStatementitself,itisdiscernible thatPW1statedtotheInvestigatingOfficerthattheaccusedwasapersonwho wassufferingfromamentaldisorderandthatshewasconsumingmedicinesfor thesame.Twodaysaftertheincident,theaccusedattemptedtocommitsuicide, by jumping into a well. She was admitted to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam in the Psychiatry Department and she underwent treatment till 06.05.2018,onwhichdate,shewasarrested.Sofrom21.04.2018till06.05.2018 theaccusedwasundergoingtreatmentinthePsychiatricWard. Whenexamined before the Court, the Investigating Officer stated in unequivocal terms that he did not deem it necessary to conduct any inquiry to ascertain the mental condition of the accused or whether the accused was suffering from mental impairment, prior to this incident. Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 5: 2024:KER:95159 29. DW1, the Professor and Head of the Psychiatric Department at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, noted a family history of psychiatricillness involving the grandmother, mother, maternal cousin, and the accused's elder brother.DuringherstayinthePsychiatricWardfrom21.04.2018to28.04.2018, he diagnosed the accused with depression with psychotic symptoms, emphasizingitsgradualonset.Heexplainedthatthisconditioncausesdelusions and hallucinations, impairing the patient's ability to understand their actions or consequences. DW1 opined that the accused likely suffered from the same condition at the time of the incident. He also noted a history of behavioral abnormalities since 2007, for which the accused had received treatment at Paduva Hospital. The investigating agency, however, allegedly suppressed relevant medical records and prevented PW1 from presenting them in court, thereby denying the accused the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. This is because the recordsmostcertainlywouldbewithPW1andtheaccusedcannot possiblymakeitavailablebeforethecourtorthepoliceifherspousechoosenot to reveal it. We find from Exhibit D1 treatment records that the accused was taken to the hospital byherfamilymembers.However,noneofthenearfamily members of the accused were either cited or examined. 30. In a catena of cases it has been held by the Apex Court that an Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 6: 2024:KER:95159 InvestigatingOfficermustconductfairandimpartialinvestigations.Asofficersof the court, their duty is to assist in uncovering the truth with objectivity andin adherence to the law. It would be apposite to take note of the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand v.StateofRajasthan8,whereinthe Apex Court had lucidly laid down the subtle differences between a Fair, Defective, and a Colourable Investigation. It was observed as under: 40. An Investigating Officer being a public servant is expected to c onduct the investigation fairly. While doing so,heisexpectedtolookfor materialsavailableforcomingtoacorrectconclusion.Heisconcernedwith the offense as against an offender. It is the offense that he investigates. Wheneverahomicidehappens,aninvestigatingofficerisexpectedtocover alltheaspectsand,intheprocess,shallalwayskeepinmindastowhether the offence would come under Section 299 IPC sans Section 300 IPC. In other words, it is his primary duty to satisfy that a case wouldfallunder culpablehomicidenotamountingtomurderandthenamurder.Whenthere areadequatematerialsavailable,heshallnotbeoverzealousinpreparinga case for an offense punishable under Section 302 IPC. We believe that a pliablechangeisrequiredinthemindoftheInvestigatingOfficer.Afterall, suchanofficerisanofficerofthecourtalsoandhisdutyistofindoutthe truth and help the court in comingtothecorrectconclusion.Hedoesnot knowsides,eitherofthevictimortheaccusedbutshallonlybeguidedby law and be an epitome of fairness in his investigation. 1. There is a subtle differencebetweenadefectiveinvestigation, 4 and one brought forth by acalculatedanddeliberateactionorinaction.A defectiveinvestigationpersewouldnotenuretothebenefitoftheaccused, unless it goes into the root of the very case of the prosecution being fundamentalinnature.Whiledealingwithadefectiveinvestigation,acourt of law is expected to sift the evidence availableandfindoutthetruthon the principle that every case involvesajourneytowardstruth.Thereshall notbeanypedanticapproacheitherbytheprosecutionorbythecourtasa 8 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1099 Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 7: 2024:KER:95159 case involves an element of law rather than morality. 31. In Kumarv.State9, theApexCourtunderscoredtheimportance of a fair investigation by observing as under: 28.Thecriminaljusticemustbeabovereproach.Itisirrelevantwhether the falsity lie in the statement of witnesses or the guilt of the accused. The investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair manner and elicittruth.Atthecostofrepetition,Imustremindtheauthoritiesconcernedto take up the investigation in a neutral manner, without having regard to the ultimate result. In this case at hand, we cannot close our eyes to what has happened;regardlessofguiltortheassertedpersuasivenessoftheevidence,the aspectwhereinthepolicehasactivelyconnivedtosuppressthefacts,cannotbe ignored or overlooked." 32. In Ranvir Singh V State of Madhya Pradesh10 it was heldas under : 5. A fair investigation would become a colourable one when there 4 involves a suppression. Suppressing the motive, injuries and other existing factors which will have the effect of modifying or altering the charge would amounttoaperfunctoryinvestigationand,therefore,becomeafalsenarrative.If thecourtsfindthatthefoundationoftheprosecutioncaseisfalseandwouldnot conformtothedoctrineoffairnessasagainstaconscioussuppression,thenthe verycaseoftheprosecutionfallstothegroundunlessthereareunimpeachable evidence to come to a conclusion for awarding a punishment on a different charge." 33. Acleardistinctionmustbedrawnbetweenadefectiveinvestigation and one tainted by deliberate or calculated actions or omissions. While a 9 ( 2018) 7 SCC 536 10 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 94) Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 8: 2024:KER:95159 defective investigation does not automatically benefit the accused, it can have significant implications if it undermines the very foundation of the prosecution case.Courtsareduty-boundtoscrutinizetheavailableevidenceanduncoverthe truth, guided by the principle that every case represents a journey toward justice. Both the prosecution and the court must avoid rigid or superficial approaches and focus on applying the law over moral interpretations. It is the responsibilityoftheinvestigativeauthoritiestoensurefairnessandimpartialityin uncovering the truth. Investigations must be conductedwithneutrality,without being influencedbypotentialoutcomes.Aninvestigationbecomescompromised when it involves suppression of critical facts, injuries, the applicability of exceptions, or other material evidence, which if produced may show a totally different picture. Such suppression transforms a fair investigation into abiased andperfunctoryexercise,resultinginadistortednarrative.Ifthecourtfindsthat theprosecutioncaseisbasedonafoundationofintentionalsuppressionandfails to adhere to the doctrine of fairness, the case would necessarily collapse. Towards Efficient and Scientific Crime Investigation: 34. Beforeparting,wewouldliketomentionthatasearlyas2006,the Apex Court in Prakash Singh v.UnionofIndiaandOrs.11 hademphasized 11 [(2006) 8 SCC 1] Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :2 9: 2024:KER:95159 the importance of separating the investigating police from the law-and-order police.Thisseparationwasrecommendedtoensurespeedyinvestigation,foster specialized expertise, and build improved rapport with the public. 35. The Law Commission, in its 154th report, had similarlyhighlighted the need for expeditiousandeffectiveinvestigationofoffences,whichiscrucial for achieving the goal of a speedy trial. The report underscored that the investigation of a crime is a highly specialized process requiring patience, expertise, proper training, and a clear understanding of the legal framework governing specific offences,aswellasthesocio-economiccontextofthecrime. Investigation is essentially an artofunearthinghiddenfactsandlinkingvarious pieces of evidence to build a strong case forprosecution.Thistaskdemandsa levelofspecializationandprofessionalismthat,unfortunately,hasnotbeenfully realized by police agencies. 36. To perform such specialized tasks efficiently, there is an urgent need for a dedicated investigating wing within the police force that continually updatesitsknowledgeandskillsbyleveragingadvancementsintechnology.The National Police Commission, initsFourthReport,lamentedthelackofexclusive focus and single-minded dedication of police officials to investigations due to systemic constraints. Efficient investigation presupposes the adoption of a Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :3 0: 2024:KER:95159 scientific work culture. Tools such as computers, photography, videography, advanced interrogation techniques, observation gadgets, and sophisticated search equipment are indispensable for investigating both traditional and technologically advanced crimes. While rapid advancements in science and technology have significantly influenced criminal investigation, they have also enabledcriminalstoemploysophisticatedmethodstoleavenotracesorcluesat crime scenes. 37. Despite this, we observe that the average investigating officer continues to rely heavily on traditional methods, such as recording witness statements or extracting confessions from accused persons, to complete investigations. Even scene sketches and plans are often prepared by village officers,andmahazarsaredrawnupwithoutsufficientapplicationofmind.This reliance on outdated methods can largely be attributed to a lack of awareness and knowledge about the scientific tools available for crime detection. This shortfall can be addressed by providing access to state-of-the-art scientific facilities and conducting regular, systematic in-service training programs at periodic intervals. 38. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has taken a commendable step by introducing the use of technology at all stages of the Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :3 1: 2024:KER:95159 criminaljusticeprocess,fromcrimeregistrationtotheconclusionofthetrial.The primaryobjectiveofthesetransformativechangesistoexpeditetrialsandbring transparency to the investigation process. The integration of technology and forensic science into investigations is a pivotal development aimed at modernizingthecriminaljusticesystemandharnessingthestrengthsofmodern scientific methodologies. Such measures will not only ensure greater accountability in police investigations but also improve the quality of evidence, thereby safeguarding the rights of both the accused and the victims. Consequently, it is imperative to institutionalize training programs to equip investigating officers with scientific methods of investigation. 39. In this jurisdiction, we have frequently encountered cases where the accused are acquitted due to errors and shortcomings in police investigations.Therearealsocasessuchastheinstantonewhereintheaccused is charged with serious crimes without conducting a fair investigation. Despite numerous judicial pronouncements which the investigating officers are to scrupulously adhere to, the final report was laid charging the appellant under Section302oftheIPC.Thisactionisalsounjustandunfair.Itisimperativethat the State Police Department rises to meet these challenges by establishing a centralized knowledge repository. Such a repository would serve as a vital Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :3 2: 2024:KER:95159 resource for young and inexperienced officers, enabling them to access comprehensiveinformationandseekguidancefromadedicatedteamofexperts. This repository would also facilitate seamless accesstolegalupdates,including recent judicial interpretations and developments in investigative techniques. 40. The creation of such a central knowledge repository would empower investigating officers by allowing them toaccessrelevantprecedents, evidence-gathering techniques, and expert advice, ensuring a more robustand efficient investigation process. Moreover, with crimes increasingly involving advanced technology, officers must be provided with the necessary support to navigate complex cases and prepare foolproof final reports backed by legally admissibleevidence.Withouttimelyinterventionandpropertraining,thequality of crime investigations will continue tosuffer,resultinginseriousinjustices.We trustthatthesesuggestionswillbegivendueconsiderationandthatappropriate measureswillbetakentomakecrimeinvestigationsintheStatemoreeffective, scientific, and result-oriented. Conclusion: 41. In thefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,weareconvincedthat the Investigating Officer was duty-bound to investigate thementalconditionof theaccusedanddeterminewhethershesufferedfromanyunsoundnessofmind Crl.A. No. 964 of 2020 :3 3: 2024:KER:95159 that incapacitated her from understanding the grievous nature of her actions. The filing of the charge sheet by the InvestigatingOfficer,withoutascertaining the mental state of the accused, reflects a dishonest approach, rendering the chargesheetdefectiveduetothelackofinvestigationintothiscriticalaspect.It can be reasonably inferred that the deliberate suppression of an investigation intotheaccused'smentalstatewasaimedatsecuringaconviction,eventhough the acts, when considered alongside Section 84 of the IPC, maynotconstitute anoffence.We,therefore,concludethattheappellantisentitledtosucceedand the appeal is liable to be allowed on the above ground. Consequently,thisappealisallowed.Theconvictionandsentencepassed bythelearnedSessionsJudgeundersection302oftheIPCissetaside,andthe appellant/accused is acquitted ofallchargesundersection235(1)oftheCr.P.C. Thebailbondshallstandcancelled,andtheappellantshallbesetatlibertyifher continued incarceration is not required in any other case. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE Sd/- P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE PS/APM/1 5/12/24