Kerala High Court acquits triple murder accused due to failure by Police to subject accused to medical examination to ascertain mental soundness

A woman convicted of triple murder by the Sessions Court was acquitted by the Kerala High Court last week on the basis that law enforcement authorities had failed to conduct any enquiry regarding her mental state at relevant time despite there being evidence that she suffered from mental illnesses (Lalitha @ Latha Vs. State of Kerala).A Division Bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha ruled that failure by investigating officer (IO) to subject the accused to medical examination immediately after the incident to ascertain the soundness of mind of the accused at the time of commission of crime, would entitle accused to the benefit of doubt. "If the Investigating Officer was fair enough and wanted to bring the true facts before the Court he would have made an enquiry into the aspect of the soundness of the mind of the accused. The nature of the offence of matricide and filicide of two small daughters coupled with the factors brought out during investigation ought to have been taken into account by the Investigating Officer to subject the accused to medical examination immediately after the incident to ascertain the soundness of mind of the accused at the crucial time of the incident. Failure to do the same creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case which would entitle the accused to benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal," the Court held. .By way of background, the accused (the appellant in this case) had, in 2008, slashed the necks of her mother and two daughters causing their deaths. She had also attempted to commit suicide by cutting her own neck but she survived due to timely medical intervention. .When she was questioned during her trial, she denied all the incriminating facts put to her and stated that she had been a mental patient at the time of the incident as well as before and after that. .The Sessions Court, Kollam,, however, found her guilty under Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. .Advocate PK Varghese, appearing for the appellant, based his arguments on the ground of infirmity in the investigation arising from the fact that the IO did not conduct any enquiry about the appellant's mental health. Witnesses, including the appellant's brother had informed the IO regarding her mental illness, he added..He also informed the court that the IO had admitted that the ENT Doctor who had treated the appellant immediately after the incident, had advised that she be given psychiatric consultation. Even though it was provided, no records were produced as to the results or diagnosis arising from the consultation, he submitted. .Varghese contended that the various aspects highlighted from the evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt about the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, which would entitle her for benefit of the exception under Section 84 of IPC and consequent acquittal. .He relied on the judgements Shibu v. State of Kerala, Devidas Loka Rathode v. State of Maharashtra, Joseph Mathai @ Jose v. State of Kerala to support his arguments and submitted that the appellant had no mens rea for killing her mother and daughters..Senior Public Prosecutor, SU Nazar, contended that the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the Sessions Judge was perfectly legal and there was no scope for interference. Nazar cited judgments in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, Kuttappan v. State of Kerala, Lakshmiah v. State of Karnataka, Hari Singh Govind v. State of M.P., Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra and Mohammed Anwar v. State (NCT Delhi) to distinguish legal insanity and medical insanity and matters which should be weighed by courts while dealing with Section 84 of IPC. .The Court observed that though evidence of the appellant's mental illness was brought out at trial, there was no evidence regarding her state of mind at the time of committing the crime..The Court cited the case of Devidas Loka Rathode v. State of Maharashtra wherein the Supreme Court had held that, in view of the previous history of insanity of the accused, it was the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and place that evidence before the Court and if it is not done, it creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused..Therefor the Court concluded that, "the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution and defence creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the mens rea of the accused and the general burden of proof on that aspect resting on the prosecution was not discharged and that would enable the accused to benefit of doubt"..Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the earlier conviction and sentence passed against the appellant..[Read Judgment]