Delhi District Court
State vs . Hanshi Page No. 1 Of 23 on 21 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Case No. 353/17
State V. Hanshi
W/o Late Kamal
R/o 313, Pocket-14, Sector-A-5,
Narela, Delhi
FIR No. 201/17
U/s 302 IPC
Police Station Narela
Assigned to Sessions 09.06.2017
Charges framed on 01.07.2017
Arguments heard on 18.03.2023
Judgement pronounced on 21.03.2023
Decision Acquittal
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Ranga, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Ms. Shivali Gautam, Amicus Curaie for the
accused.
JUDGMENT
1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
The brief material facts of the prosecution case are that DD No.15A dated 07.03.2017 received in the police station Narela, stated therein that at H. No.313, Sector-A-5, Pocket-14 where husband and wife live, the wife was mentally weak and her SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 1 of 23 husband found dead and on receiving this DD entry, SI Jeet Singh reached at the said address and found that dead body of Kamal S/o Munshi was found on the bed whose age was about 30 years and in the meantime, Inspector Dheeraj Singh with Women Constable Jyoti, Head Constable Sudhir reached at the spot. Crime team was called. Photographs of the spot were taken and dead body was sent to the Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital Mortuary to preserve. Deceased Kamal's wife Hanshi told that there was some dispute with her husband Kamal in respect of her medicine and at 10.00 pm, when her husband Kamal slept, she had hit on his head with hammer and her husband died. No eyewitness was found at the spot. FIR u/s 302 of IPC was registered. Investigation was carried out. The accused, Hanshi, wife of deceased Kamal was arrested and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence u/s 302 of IPC and after compliance of the requirement u/s 207 Cr.P.C., the case was assigned to this court for trial by the order of the ld.
Principal District & Sessions Judge, North-District, Rohini Courts.
2. CHARGE:
That, on the basis of material available on record as well as the evidence collected by the IO during the course of the SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 2 of 23 investigation, ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.07.2017 framed charges against accused Hanshi for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
That, in order to prove the case, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses namely :-
PWS Name of Nature of the Documents proved the witness witness PW1 Ct. Naveen Police witness This witness has deposed that on dated 21.04.2017 on the call of Inspector Dheeraj, he alongwith Inspector Dheeraj reached H. No.313, Pocket-14, Sector-A-5, Narela and took the measurement and prepared the scaled plan Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross- examined by ld. Amicus Curaie.
PW2 Ct. Rahul Police witness This witness deposed that on dated 07.03.2017, Duty Officer handed over to him the copy of the FIR to deliver the same to the Senior Officer.
PW3 Ct. Police witness He had taken 8 photographs
SC No.353/17
State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 3 of 23
Satender of the scene of the crime
from different angles
Ex.PW3/A1 to A8. The
negatives are Ex.PW3/B of
the dead body lying in the
House no.313, Pocket-14,
Sector-A-5, Narela.
PW4 Ct. Uday Police witness He has deposed that on
Bhan dated 07.4.2017, he
collected five sealed parcels
from MHC(M) and
deposited the same to FSL,
Rohini.
PW5 Smt. Savitri Mother of Smt. Savitri is the mother of
accused the accused who has
identified the dead body of
Kamal. In the cross-
examination made by ld.
Amicus Curaie, this witness
has deposed "it is correct
that I do not know as to how
and who killed Kamal.
Kamal used to take drink."
PW6 Baby Daughter of PW6 is the daughter of the
Chahat accused accused and the deceased
who has deposed that
"mummy aur papa ka jhagda
hua, kyuki mummy ki dawai
kho gayi thi, meri papa TV
dekhte dekhte so gaya,
mummy ne mandir se
hathoda uthaya aur papa ke
maathe pe marra." The next
morning, she went to the
SC No.353/17
State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 4 of 23
house of her nani. Her mausi
Kajal was on the roof. She
told Kajal "Mummy ne papa
ko hathode se maar diya".
PW7 HC Satish Police witness He was the Duty Officer
Kumar from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm on
dated 07.03.2017 and he
received the information
from wireless operator that
husband is lying dead at
Sector-A-5, Pocket-14, H.
No.313, wife is mentally
sick and he recorded the DD
No.15A
PW8 ASI Police witness He deposed that on dated
Ramesh 07.03.2017, he was posted
Kumar at CECR Control Room and
after receiving the
information that husband is
lying dead at Sector-A-5,
Pocket-14, H. No.312, he
reported to the control room
regarding the incident.
PW9 SI Harish Police witness He has proved the certificate
Chander u/s 65B of Indian Evidence
Pathak Act Ex.PW9/A.
PW10 Sh. Ram Public witness He made a call at 100
Dev number from his mobile
phone no.9891535520 at
about 9.00 am on dated
07.03.2017
PW11 SI Jagdeep Police witness He deposed that on dated
07.03.2017, he was posted
SC No.353/17
State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 5 of 23
as Incharge in Crime Team
and inspected the scene of
crime.
PW12 Dr. Anshul Doctor who He deposed that on dated
Saxena conducted 08.03.2017, he had carried
postmortem of out the postmortem of the
the body of the body of Kamal.
deceased
PW13 Sh. Sunil ld. MM-03 PW3 is the Metropolitan
Kumar Magistrate who had
recorded the statement of
PW6 Baby Chahat u/s 164
Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/B.
PW14 W/Ct. Jyoti Police witness She joined the investigation
with the IO.
PW15 ASI Police witness He has joined the
Balwan investigation with the IO.
Singh
PW16 Ct. Sudhir Police witness He has also joined the
investigation with the IO.
PW17 Ct. Ajay Police witness He has also joined the
investigation with the IO.
PW18 Sh. Shyam Father of accused He is the father of accused Singh who identified the dead body of Kamal in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital vide his statement Ex.PW18/A PW19 SI Jeet Police witness He has joined the Singh investigation with the IO. PW20 Inspector Police witness He is the IO of this case.
Dheeraj Singh SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 6 of 23 PW21 Dr. R.P. Specialist He has examined the hammer Singh Forensic alleged to have been used in Medicine, BJRM the commission of the Hospital offence.
4. COURT WITNESSES:
CWS Name of the Nature of the Documents
witness witness proved
CW1 Dr. Vijender Professor of Mental illness of
Singh Psychiatry of accused
IHBAS
CW2 Dr. Deepak Doctor from Mental illness of
Kumar IHBAS accused
CW3 Dr. Naveen Doctor from Mental illness of
Grover IHBAS accused
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C:
At the time of recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence against the accused brought on record by the prosecution were put to the accused and she has denied the same and has examined DW1 Dr. Vijender Singh, Associate Professor from IHBAS, who has given the treatment to the accused by the doctors of IHBAS.SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 7 of 23
6. DEFENCE WITNESS:
DWS Name of the Nature of the Documents
witness witness proved
DW1 Dr. Vijender Associate This witness has
Singh Professor of proved the
Psychiatry, treatment given
IHBAS, Delhi to the accused
by the doctors of
IHBAS.
7. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the accused has committed the offence of knowing the consequences in a fit state of mind and the prosecution witnesses particularly PW5 Smt. Savitri, mother of the accused and PW6 Baby Chahat, daughter of the accused has proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there testimony cannot be discarded in any manner and make a submission that the accused may kindly be convicted for the offence u/s 302 of IPC.
8. Ms. Shivali Gautam, ld. Amicus Curaie for the accused has submitted that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of offence and was not aware about the act which she alleged to have been done and was also not aware the consequences of that act and as per Section 84 of IPC, she has SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 8 of 23 not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and make a submission that accused may kindly be acquitted.
9. Having heard the submissions made by ld. APP for the State as well as ld. Counsel Amicus Curiae and after gone through the case file, this court is of the considered view that the allegations against the accused are that on dated 06.03.2017 at about 10.00 pm at H. No.313, Pocket-14, Sector-A-5, Narela, she has caused death of her husband Kamal by hitting on his head with hammer to which investigation was carried out and she was arrested and to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses including the IO and the doctors who have carried out the postmortem report of the deceased Kamal, husband of the accused. PW1 Constable Naveen, PW2 Constable Rahul, PW3 Constable Satender, PW4 Constable Uday Bhan have joined the investigation being carried out by the IO.
10. PW5 Smt. Savitri and PW6 Baby Chahat are the star witnesses for the prosecution to prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts inasmuch as PW5 Smt. Savitri, mother of the accused has deposed that she is illiterate and was working in a factory in DSIIDC, Bhorgarh, Delhi. Hanshi present in the court is her daughter, who was married with Kamal, who SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 9 of 23 was also working in some other factory in DSIIDC. Kamal was a good boy and because of that reason, she married her daughter (the accused) with Kamal. Kamal and Hanshi were blessed with two daughters and one son. The eldest daughter is baby Chahat and has completed six years of her age. She has further deposed that six days prior to Holi festival, in the morning hours, Chahat, daughter of Hanshi (accused) came to her house and told Kajal/ sister of accused Hanshi that 'Papa Ko Khoon Aa Raha Hai'. Kajal went to the house of Hanshi, came back and started crying. Thereafter, she went to the house of Hanshi and saw Kamal was bleeding from her forehead and was dead. Police also came there and made inquiries from her and she told to the police that she does not know as to who killed Kamal. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she had visited the Jail for meeting to her daughter accused Hanshi. Earlier to the death of Kamal, accused was taking medicines for mental ailment. Whenever accused take medicine, she remained calmed but if she was not given medicine, she behaved aggressively and used to gave beatings to her children and hurl abuses to all. Accused was under treatment with Mental Hospital at Shahdara and she was suffering from the ailment when Chahat was under her womb. Accused was suffering from this mental ailment prior to her marriage with Kamal. Usually, she take accused to Mental Hospital, Shahdara for medicine after her marriage. Sometimes, Kamal used to take SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 10 of 23 her to the hospital. Accused was never admitted to the Mental Hospital for this ailment.
11. In the further cross-examination, she has deposed that Kamal used to drink daily. "It is correct that I do not know as to how and who killed Kamal."
12. PW6 Baby Chahat was produced before ld. MM by the IO at the time of the investigation of the present case FIR and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded inasmuch as the prosecution has tried to prove that baby Chahat, daughter of deceased and accused was the eye-witness of the incident.
13. PW6 Baby Chahat has deposed that "Mummy aur Papa Ka Jhagda Hua, Kyonki Mummy Ki Davai Kho Gayee Thi. Mere Papa T.V. Dekhte Dekhte So Gaye, mummy ne mandir se hathora uthaya aur papa ke maathey par maara (the child has pointed out the place with finger of her right hand)." In the morning she went to the house of her Nani. Her mausi Kajal was on the roof. She told Kajal "Mummy ne papa ko Hathoray se maar diya. Meri mausi mere papa ko dekhne aayi aur wo mere papa ko dekh kar dar gayi."
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that PW6 Chahat is the eye-
SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 11 of 23witness and she has proved the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and on the sole testimony of PW6, the accused may kindly be held convicted.
15. PW7 Head Constable Satish Kumar has deposed that on dated 07.03.2017, he was posted as Duty Officer from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm at PS Narela and at about 9.02 am, he had received information from wireless operator that husband is lying dead at Sector-A-5, Pocket-14, House No.313, where husband wife resides. Wife is mentally sick. He recorded the DD.
16. PW8 ASI Ramesh Kumar and PW9 SI Harish Chander Pathak has deposed that on dated 07.03.2017 at about 9.00 am, they both were posted on PCR and received information that husband is lying dead at House no.313, Pocket-14, Sector-A-5 where husband wife resides. Wife is mentally sick.
17. PW10 Ram Dev S/o Ram Gulam, who is independent witness and is the resident of the same vicinity where the alleged incident happened of death of the husband of the accused and he has deposed that on 07.03.2017, many public persons were gathered outside house no.313 where accused Hanshi and her husband Kamal used to reside with their family members. He came to know that the Kamal have been murdered. He made a call to the SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 12 of 23 police at 100 number from his mobile no.9891535520 at about 9.00 am. Accused Hanshi said "Mere pati ka khoon nikal gaya hai, use khoon chada do, theek ho jayenge". In the cross- examination, this witness has admitted that he had seen accused Hanshi mentally disturbed prior to the incident and know that accused Hanshi taking treatment from Shahdara Hospital.
18. PW12 Dr. Anshu Saxena deposed that on dated 08.03.2017, he was posted at S.R. Forensic Medicine, BJRM Hospital and he conducted the postmortem on the body of Kamal, aged 30 years vide postmortem report no.207/17 Ex.PW12/A bears his signature at point A. He opined the deceased died due to craniocerbral injuries, sustained as a result of blunt force trauma to the head. Cumulatively, the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
19. PW16 Constable Sudhir, who has joined the investigation with the IO has deposed that when he inspected the spot with the IO, then, accused informed that she had a quarrel with her husband on the issue of medicine and after 10.00 pm when Kamal slept, she hit with hammer on his head causing his death.
20. PW18 Shyam Singh, who is the father of the accused has deposed that his daughter Hanshi, accused herein was under SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 13 of 23
treatment at Shahdara Hospital for her mental illness and the documents were taken away by the police. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that accused was under medical treatment for the last ten years as she was suffering from mental ailment prior to her marriage and his wife used to take accused to mental hospital. This witness has also deposed that "it is correct that in the absence of medication, Hanshi was not able to distinguish between the wrong and right act. It is also correct that even after medication, she would never realize what she had done and the consequences thereof".
21. PW19 SI Jeet Singh has also admitted in the cross-examination that during the course of the investigation, "the neigbourers and the relatives of the accused including her mother informed us that the mental condition of the accused is not good. It is correct that when I met with the accused, her mental condition was not good".
22. PW20 Inspector Dheeraj Singh has admitted in his cross-
examination that mother of the accused has told that accused was under treatment from SRHC Hospital but she did not handover me medical documents related to her treatment.
23. PW21 Dr. R.P. Singh, Specialist Forensic Medicine, BJRM SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 14 of 23 Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi has deposed that on dated 10.08.2017, one application was submitted by Inspector Dheeraj Singh regarding opinion on weapon of offence in postmortem report no.207/17 dated 08.03.2017 of deceased Kamal and after gone through the postmortem report and examining the alleged weapon of offence, he was of the considered opinion that Hammer is sufficient to cause injuries mentioned in the postmortem report. His report is Ex.PW21/A and the sketch of hammer is Ex.PW21/E.
24. Ld. Amicus Curaie for the accused has argued that at the time of the commission of offence and even before that, the accused was taking the treatment from IHBAS and she has also taken the plea that no offence as alleged has been committed by the accused in a fit state of mind and this fact has also been proved by DW1 Dr. Vijender Singh, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, IHBAS, Delhi as well as CW1 Dr. Vijender Singh, who was called by the court as court witness to ascertain the mental illness of the accused and has deposed that accused was found unfit to stand trial and she will need continue treatment for her condition on out patient basis and in the cross-examination carried out by ld. APP for the State, CW1 has deposed that "it is correct that the disorder non- organic non-effective psychosis is not curable. The patient condition would worsen more if no regular medicine is provided SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 15 of 23 to her and her condition would improve if she was treated outdoor with her family". This witness was also cross-examined by ld. Amicus Curaie for the accused and during the cross- examination, he has deposed that "it would be conducive for the health of the patient, if she is allowed to live with her family and friends".
25. It is pertinent to mention that, after carried out the preliminary inquiry and making the assessment of the accused of her mental illness by CW1 Dr. Vijender Singh, Associate Professor of Pyschiatry, IHBAS, CW2 Dr. Deepak Kumar, Vice Chairman, Medical Board, Deputy Medical Superintendent and HOD Psychiatry at IHBAS, Delhi and CW3 Dr. Naveen Grover, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at IHBAS, Delhi, the custody of accused was handed over to the parents of the accused to get her regular treatment from IHBAS and the matter was adjourned sine die and only after filing the report of the Board of Doctors of IHBAS, the accused was summoned to appear and has been found fit to stand trial in a supportive environment and her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
26. Section 84 of IPC - Act of a person of unsound mind - Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 16 of 23 the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
The essential elements of Section 84 are as follows :-
(i) The accused must, at the time of commission of the act be of unsound mind.
(ii) The unsoundness must be such as to make the accused at the time when he/she is doing the act charged as offence, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he/she is doing what is wrong or contrarily to law.
27. That, to commit a criminal offence, 'mens rea' is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said 'furiosus nulla voluntusest'. A person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he/she does not know what he/she is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for his/ her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behaivour (reliance is placed upon 'State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram' (2012) 1 SCC 602).
SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 17 of 2328. Section 84 of the IPC, Act of a person of unsound mind is to be read with Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act which speaks that when a person is accused of any offence and he/she takes the plea that case of accused comes within exceptions, then, the burden of proving the resistance of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exceptions or proviso contained in any other part of the same court or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the courts shall presume the exception of such circumstances and the burden of the accused could not be equated with the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases and could not be rated higher than a burden on a party to civil proceedings wherein a finding could be based on preponderance of probabilities. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case 'Shivraj Singh Vs. State of M.P.', 1975 Criminal Law Journal 1958 that there was no conflict between the general burden which was always on the prosecution and which never shifted, and the special burden that rested on the accused to make out his defence of insanity.
29. Prosecution is duty bound to subject the accused to a medical examination. The accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act u/s 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 18 of 23 insanity and not medical insanity. The term 'unsoundness of mind' has not been defined in the IPC and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity but the term 'insanity' carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite alright, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer, are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of IPC. Reliance is placed upon 'Surender Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand', AIR 2011 SC 627.
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in case 'Sita Ram Jopole Vs. State', 2013 Criminal Law Journal 3588 (Bombay) that the accused must establish facts and circumstances from which the court may reasonably infer that the accused was, at the time of commission of offence, by a reason of insanity, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, the legality of the act or whether the act done was right or wrong.
SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 19 of 2331. It is worth mentioning that almost all the prosecution witnesses has proved that the mental condition of the accused was not good at the time of the alleged commission of offence and she was taking the treatment from IHBAS, Shahdara and the doctors of IHBAS Dr. Vijender Singh who examined as CW1 has proved that the patient condition would worsen more if no regular medicine is provided to her and her condition would improve if she was treated outdoor with her family. It has also been proved that the dispute of the accused with her husband was related to the medicine of the accused and it has been proved that because of non-providing the medicine, her mental condition at the alleged commission of offence was not good and it has also been proved that she was taking the treatment from IHBAS at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
32. It has come on evidence that PW6 Baby Chahat, who is the daughter of the deceased and the accused and is the star witness of this case and she has admitted in her cross-examination "no neighbour came to our house when my parents were quarreling with each other due to missing of medicine. I slept with my father after my mummy hit on forehead of my father. My mother slept on the floor."
PW10 who is an independent witness and neighbour of the SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 20 of 23 accused has deposed that accused Hanshi said "mere pati ka khoon nikal gaya hai, use khoon chada do, theek ho jayega"
and in the cross-examination, this witness has also admitted "I had seen Hanshi mentally disturbed prior to the incident. I know accused Hanshi taking medical treatment from Shahdara Hospital".
PW16 Constable Sudhir, who had joined the investigation has admitted in his cross-examination that no public person was present inside the room where the dead body of accused was lying and only accused and dead body of deceased was found in the said room.
It has also come on the evidence of PW20 Inspector Dheeraj Singh, who was the IO of this case that accused was got recovered blood stain hammer which was kept under the bed near wall of the room and also come on evidence that the accused slept over the night with the dead body alongwith her children and she had spoken to one independent witness on the very next day of the alleged incident that "Mere pati ka khoon nikal gaya hai, use khoon chada do, theek ho jayenge" and these are the circumstances which inspire the confidence that at the time of the commission of offence, the accused was not in a SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 21 of 23 fit state of mind and was not aware as to what is wrong and what is good.
Therefore, this court is of the considered view that at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused was insane. Reliance is placed upon 'Kamala Bhuniya Vs. State', 2006 Criminal Law Journal 998 (SC) wherein it has been held by their lordship 'the accused wife killed her husband by using an axe but neither she tried to conceal the weapon of murder nor tried to escape from the scene of occurrence. Prosecution failed to prove mens rea in the accused at the time of commission of the offence. It was held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 84 of Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused was not of a good state of mind at the time of alleged commission of the offence and the accused is entitled for the benefit of section 84 of IPC. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, the accused is acquitted from the charges of the offence u/s 302 IPC.
SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 22 of 2333. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.03.2023 (SATISH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03, (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.353/17 State Vs. Hanshi Page No. 23 of 23