Supreme Court frees woman jailed for daughters' murders: Mental illness overlooked
In April 2015, Chunni Bai, a resident of Chhattisgarh, began going around her village claiming to be "Mata" and "Budi Dai." Concerned by her behaviour, her husband took her to a psychiatrist at a government hospital, where she was prescribed medication. Ten days later, she killed her two daughters with a crowbar. She was arrested and later convicted of murder by a trial court.advertisementNow, nearly 10 years later, the Supreme Court has ordered her release, ruling that she be freed based on the sentence already served. The court noted that her mental condition had not been adequately considered during her trial.'It is not common for rustic persons to be aware of various mental disorders or illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, which may temporarily impair an individual's mental condition,' the court observed in its order.
"More often than not, these disorders go unrecognised and untreated, as the symptoms can be difficult to identify, and the affected individuals do not seek proper and timely medical intervention. As a result, these conditions are often misinterpreted as being caused by spells or the influence of invisible forces rooted in superstition."A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotishwar Singh held that the "inexplicable and bizarre" nature of the crime should have prompted a deeper examination by the trial court, even though the accused did not enter a formal plea of insanity.advertisementThe court pointed out that Chunni Bai's father-in-law had told police about her altered mental state and the supposed "invisible influence," but the matter was not investigated further. Instead, the police built their case on eyewitness testimony, fingerprint evidence, and Chunni Bai's own confession.'We would like to make certain observations that, in our opinion, trial courts should keep in mind while dealing with such cases—especially when the accused claims to have been under the influence of invisible forces or where the prosecution is unable to explain the motive behind the homicide,' the bench stated. 'When the evidence on record shows highly unusual and inexplicable circumstances under which the crime was committed, as in the present case, these aspects must be thoroughly examined.'The court further stated that, even if the accused remains silent, the judiciary has a duty to seek the truth.'If such circumstances emerge during the trial and remain bizarre and inexplicable, the court, in our opinion, should question the witnesses as necessary by invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act,' the court said.The bench stressed that this approach is essential when the accused pleads the existence of circumstances beyond their control, which may indicate temporary mental incapacity.advertisement'If the accused, at the time of committing the crime, was incapable of making a conscious and informed decision, or was suffering from mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind—even temporarily—it raises a question about the presence of intent,' the court noted. 'In such cases, the benefit of the doubt may be extended to the accused regarding intention and mens rea, as these factors determine the nature of conviction and the sentence to be imposed.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Prabhakar Rao likely to return to India on June 9
Hyderabad: Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief Prabhakar Rao, prime accused in the phone tapping case, is expected to come to India on June 9 from the US. It is learnt that Rao approached the Indian embassy in the US and is all set to get his passport. The Supreme Court had recently directed authorities to restore his passport to allow him to travel to India. The SC also protected him from arrest, but directed him to return to India within three days of obtaining his travel documents. The passport had been revoked following a request to Centre from Hyderabad police as he had been avoiding questioning by cops by staying in the US citing ill health. Soon after Hyderabad police registered a case of phone tapping in 2024, Rao had fled to the US.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
NGT slams govt, orders recovery of Rs 5.7crore compensation from cracker unit
CHENNAI: (NGT) has slammed Tamil Nadu govt for inaction in auctioning the attached properties of a firecracker unit, where an explosion killed 21 people in 2021. It ordered the govt to treat the issue as urgent and pass necessary orders by June 24, the next date of hearing. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Chief secretary N Muruganandam shall urgently obtain govt orders for allocating Rs 5.7 crore as pending compensation to the victims of the accident at Sree Mariammal Fireworks unit in Virudhunagar. The amount shall be recovered from the unit's owner or lessee, it said. The accident on Feb 12, 2021, claimed 26 lives and injured 26 others. Based on a committee's recommendation, NGT in 2021 fixed graded compensation from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 20 lakh for the deceased and the injured. The order fixed 80% of the Rs 5.7 crore responsibility on the unit's licensee and lessees, and 10% each was apportioned to the central and state govts for regulatory lapses. While both govts disbursed their Rs 52 lakh shares through the CM and PM relief funds, the remaining 80% from the industry has not reached victims. The collector's status report said the firm's declared assets was only Rs 50 lakh, forcing the administration to seek state funding first, before recovering it. The state had earlier challenged the NGT order citing procedural lapses, but Supreme Court, in Jan 2024, rejected the argument, saying Tamil Nadu's approach was 'casual'. The apex court held that the state could not claim lack of hearing or missing documents as grounds for appeal, especially after being granted multiple opportunities post-remand. Though Supreme Court dismissed the state's appeal and cleared the tribunal's orders, the govt is yet to initiate the revenue recovery process against Sree Mariammal Fireworks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now According to the Virudhunagar collector's May 9 communication, the proposal to recover Rs 5.7 crore was sent on Oct 28 last year but it remained unapproved by the govt. The unit's properties across two villages spanning 7.36 hectares have been blocked under Section 22-B(2) of the Registration Act in anticipation of recovery, it said. Recording the collector's letter, NGT, which had previously warned that inaction would attract a Rs10,000 cost, said on June 2 that apart from the collector's letter to the chief secretary, no progress had been made in the case. Reiterating that the issue should be treated as urgent, the tribunal adjourned the case to June 24.
