Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sana Amankhan Pathan, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for the murder of two minor children, Shafak Khan (aged 10) and Mahek Khan (aged 8), under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 25,000. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a neighbour, bore a grudge against the children's father, Mohd. Israil Khan (PW3), because his wife had previously complained about her behaviour. On 13 September 2013, around 10:15 AM, the appellant called the children to her house via a boy named Rohit Thakur. She then increased the volume of the TV and murdered Shafak by strangulating him with a nylon rope, and Mahek by strangulating her with a phone charger wire and drowning her in water. The bodies were discovered, and the appellant was arrested. The trial court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, recovery of the murder weapons, and motive, sufficient to convict. The appellant's defence was insanity, and she examined five witnesses to support her claim of unsoundness of mind. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the insanity defence, the court noted that the burden was on the appellant to prove unsoundness of mind by a preponderance of probabilities. The medical evidence, including the testimony of the doctor who examined her, did not establish that she was incapable of knowing the nature of her act or that it was wrong. Her conduct after the incident, such as fleeing and hiding, indicated awareness. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction for double murder of minor children - Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant called children to her house and killed them by strangulation and drowning - Circumstantial evidence including last seen, recovery of weapons, and motive established guilt (Paras 1-4). B) Criminal Law - Insanity Defence - Section 84 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Burden on accused to prove unsoundness of mind by preponderance of probabilities - Appellant failed to establish that she was incapable of knowing nature of act or that it was wrong - Medical evidence and conduct after incident showed she was aware of consequences - Held that defence of insanity not made out (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the defence of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Section 302 IPC
- Murder
- Insanity Defence
- Burden of Proof
- Section 84 IPC
- Preponderance of Probabilities
