"Absence Of Motive Strengthens Insanity Defence": Supreme Court Modifies Conviction Of Mother Who Killed Two Daughters Under 'Invisible Influence'
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh partly allowed a criminal appeal, modifying the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Part II of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The Court held that the intention to cause death was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the appellant’s period of incarceration exceeding nine years and ten months, the Court ordered her release, noting that the peculiar circumstances warranted benefit of doubt regarding mens rea.
The present appeal arose against the judgment dated 21.11.2023 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, which had upheld the conviction of the appellant, Chunni Bai, under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 05.06.2015, in the village of Bharadkala, District Bemetara, the appellant assaulted her two minor daughters, aged five and three, with an iron crowbar, resulting in grievous injuries leading to their deaths.
The incident was witnessed by Sonam Sahu (PW-1), the appellant’s sister-in-law, who lived in the same household. PW-1 testified that she heard the appellant shouting that she was killing her daughters and found the children bleeding, while the appellant was seen striking her younger daughter with the crowbar. The injured children were taken to the hospital but were declared dead on arrival.
An FIR was registered based on the complaint of a neighbour, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. At trial, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses, including medical professionals who conducted autopsies confirming the cause of death as homicidal injuries inflicted by a blunt object.
The appellant, in her statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the charges, claiming she was under the influence of an invisible power during the incident. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a fine. The High Court, upon appeal, upheld the conviction, relying on medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, seizure of the crime weapon, and forensic reports confirming the presence of human blood on the weapon.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court, raising contentions regarding absence of intention, mental condition at the time of the offence, and non-application of mind by the lower courts to her defence.
Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh recorded that:
“Since the death of the two girls was not denied and was proved on the basis of the evidence on record, the first issue that is to be addressed is whether the death was caused by the appellant.”
The Court noted:
“The testimonies of Sonam Sahu (PW-1) and other prosecution witnesses, corroborated by the postmortem reports and forensic evidence, proved that the appellant caused the deaths by assaulting her daughters with an iron crowbar.”
While acknowledging the homicidal nature of the deaths, the Court critically analyzed whether the element of “intention” necessary to constitute murder under Section 300 IPC was established beyond reasonable doubt. It observed:
“It cannot be conclusively held in the present case that the intention of the appellant or conscious knowledge of what she was doing, a component of mens rea, has been established beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Bench elaborated that:
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances revealed in the present case, and also keeping in mind that the incident happened in a rural setting and the appellant not being highly educated, the possibility of confusing her unstable mental condition or temporary lapse of judgmental power bordering on temporary insanity cannot be completely ruled out.”
Further, it was stated:
“Absence of motive assumes great importance, which in turn would put a question mark on the presence of ‘intention’ to commit the said act.”
The Court took into account that the appellant loved her children, maintained cordial relations with her family, and exhibited no behavior indicative of malice. It recorded:
“In this background, absence of motive assumes great importance, which would put a question mark on the presence of intention to commit the act.”
Noting the appellant’s immediate remorse, the Court stated:
“She was crying and bemoaning the killing of her children, which indicates absence of any premeditation to commit the offence.”
The Bench observed that while direct evidence established the actus reus, it was not safe to presume mens rea without considering the surrounding circumstances.
Referring to the appellant’s plea of being under an “invisible power,” the Court held that
“Even though not substantiated by medical evidence, in the light of strange, bizarre and inexplicable behavior, a shadow of doubt is cast about the presence of the requisite intention to cause death.”
The Court concluded that the case fell within the third category of “culpable homicide of the third degree” punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC.
Upon considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court converted the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Part II of Section 304 IPC.
The Court recorded that the appellant had caused the death of her daughters but held that the intention to cause death was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the Bench directed that the conviction under Section 302 IPC stood modified to one under Part II of Section 304 IPC.
Noting that the appellant had already undergone a period of custody exceeding nine years and ten months, the Court sentenced her to the period already undergone without imposing any fine. Accordingly, the Court directed that the appellant shall be released forthwith.
The appeal was thus partly allowed to the extent of modifying the conviction and sentence.
Before concluding, the Court made significant observations for future cases.
It stated that trial courts must remain vigilant when an accused pleads mental incapacity or influence of invisible forces, particularly in cases involving serious offences like homicide.
The Court observed that when such circumstances emerge, which are inexplicable and bizarre, courts must, even without any prompting by the parties, invoke their powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to elicit necessary facts from witnesses.
The Court stressed that both actus reus and mens rea must be conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt before convicting an accused, especially where the mental stability of the accused is questioned.
The Court further stated that if an accused is found incapable of making conscious and informed decisions at the time of committing the crime due to mental incapacity, even temporary, it casts serious doubt on the existence of the necessary mens rea.
In such situations, the benefit of doubt regarding intention must be extended, which could affect the nature of conviction and sentencing.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Mahendran, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Advocate; Ms. Akansha Singh, Advocate; Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Advocate; Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 577
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13119 of 2024)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
[Read/Download order]
