Section 302 IPC | Psychological Distress No Defence for Infanticide: Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Life Imprisonment

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in a harrowing case involving a mother convicted for the murder of her two young children and an attempt to commit suicide. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 309 IPC, rejecting arguments of psychological distress or lack of intent. This judgment underscores the stringent standards for proving unsound mind in criminal cases and the weight of extra-judicial confessions in establishing guilt.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Golla Sunitha, was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapuramu, in Special Sessions Case No. 249 of 2016, for the murder of her two children - Kusuma (Deceased No. 1, aged 3 years) and Rishi Yadav (Deceased No. 2, aged 1 year) - and for attempting to commit suicide. She was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 309 IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000 for each offence. In default of payment, she was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each default.

Key Facts

• Marriage and Family: The appellant married PW.2 (her husband) on 27.04.2012. They had two children, both of whom were killed in the incident. PW.2 was employed in Jammu and Kashmir and later transferred to Babina, Uttar Pradesh, in 2015.
• Incident Timeline:
  • 04.05.2015: The appellant, PW.2, and their children visited their native place.
  • 19.05.2015: PW.2 left for Babina, assuring the appellant that he would take her and the children to his workplace.
  • 22.06.2015 (5:45 p.m.): The appellant killed both children by slitting their throats and inflicted injuries on herself in an attempt to commit suicide. PW.6 (the appellant’s sister-in-law) arrived at the scene, found the appellant armed with a knife (M.O.1), and raised an alarm. PW.4 to PW.7 arrived and disarmed the appellant.
  • 22.06.2015 (10:00 p.m.): PW.1 (Surpanch of the village) submitted a report (Ex.P1) to Kambadur Police Station, leading to the registration of Crime No. 84 of 2015 under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.
• Investigation:
  • PW.14 (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered the FIR (Ex.P11).
  • PW.15 (Circle Inspector of Police) conducted the investigation, including inquests (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) and postmortem examinations.
  • The postmortem reports (Ex.P9 and Ex.P10) confirmed that the children died due to shock and hemorrhage from sharp weapon injuries.
  • The appellant’s injuries (Ex.P8) were found to be self-inflicted.
  • On 24.06.2015, PW.15 recorded statements from witnesses.
  • On 13.07.2015, PW.11 (Village Revenue Officer) recorded the appellant’s extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6) and seized her blood-stained clothes (M.Os.7 to 9).
• Motive: The appellant was frustrated that PW.2 had not taken her and the children to his workplace. She confessed to PW.6 and others that she killed the children and attempted suicide because she "did not want to live."

Procedural History

• 13.07.2018: The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced her as above.
• 2018: The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 2466 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
• 2018: I.A. No. 1 of 2018 was filed for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.
• 2024: I.A. No. 1 of 2024 was filed for bail, which was granted on 25.04.2024 in terms of the order in Batchu Rangarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
• 01.07.2026: The High Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought:

• Acquittal from the charges under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.
• Setting aside the trial court’s judgment dated 13.07.2018.
• Suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.

The Legal Issue

The central questions before the High Court were:

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally killed her two children under Section 302 IPC and attempted to commit suicide under Section 309 IPC.
2. Whether the appellant’s psychological condition or unsound mind at the time of the offence could be considered to mitigate her liability.
3. Whether the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6) and the oral confessions made to witnesses were admissible and reliable.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel argued:

• Lack of Eye Witnesses: There were no direct eye witnesses to the killings.
• Unreliable Confession: The extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6) was weak and recorded 20 days after the incident, making it unreliable.
• Psychological Distress: The appellant’s mental condition at the time of the offence should be considered. She was frustrated due to PW.2’s refusal to take her to his workplace.
• Precedents:
  • Baijanti Bai v. State of M.P.: The accused’s act of jumping into a well with her child was not considered murder due to her abnormal mental state.
  • Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh: The Supreme Court held that intention (mens rea) could not be conclusively proven where the accused claimed to be under the influence of an "invisible power."

For the Respondent (State)

The Additional Public Prosecutor contended:

• Reliability of Evidence: The prosecution relied on the extra-judicial confession, oral confessions to witnesses, and medical evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt.
• Burden of Proof: The burden to prove unsound mind or lack of intent lay on the appellant, which she failed to discharge.
• Inapplicability of Precedents: The facts of Chunni Bai and Baijanti Bai were distinguishable, as the appellant’s act was brutal and deliberate.
• No Leniency: The appellant did not raise the plea of unsound mind during the trial, and her conduct did not indicate any psychological abnormality.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and legal principles:

Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confession

The Court relied on the twin test laid down in Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar to assess the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6):

1. Voluntariness: The confession must be voluntary and not induced by coercion or promise.
2. Truthfulness: The confession must be corroborated by other evidence.

The Court held that while Ex.P6 was recorded 20 days after the incident, the oral confessions made by the appellant to PW.6 and other witnesses immediately after the offence were spontaneous and reliable. These confessions were corroborated by:

• The medical evidence (Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P10), which confirmed the homicidal deaths of the children and the self-inflicted injuries on the appellant.
• The recovery of the knife (M.O.1) and blood-stained clothes (M.Os.7 to 9) from the scene.
• The testimonies of PW.2, PW.6, and PW.9, who deposed about the appellant’s motive (frustration over PW.2’s refusal to take her to his workplace) and her confession to them.

"The statement made by the accused immediately after the incident to the prosecution witnesses will amount to even extra judicial confession. The extra judicial confession covered by Ex.P6 may be surrounded with clouds. But the oral extra judicial confession made to other witnesses immediately after the incident by the accused and that, she was found with the deceased immediately after the incident and that, the children are living with the accused in her custody, when seen together, she has a special burden to prove as to what has happened to children and what has happened to her."

Psychological Condition and Mens Rea

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that she was psychologically disturbed or legally insane at the time of the offence:

• No Evidence of Unsound Mind: The appellant did not raise this defence during the trial or in her Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. Her answers were coherent and consistent, except for her claim that she "did not remember" attempting suicide.
• Brutality of the Act: The nature of the injuries inflicted on the children (slitting their throats) indicated deliberate intent and awareness of consequences. The Court distinguished this case from Baijanti Bai and Chunni Bai, where the acts were less brutal and the accused’s mental state was abnormal.
• Sequence of Events: The appellant first killed her children and then attempted suicide, indicating clear intent rather than a sudden loss of sanity.

"The psychological state of accused is clear. It can be believed that she is aware about what she is doing including the consequences thereof. Intention behind what is done and intensity while doing the thing, on the part of the accused are very much evident."

Legal Insanity and Burden of Proof

The Court emphasized that the burden of proving unsound mind lies on the accused, citing Madesh v. State:

• The appellant did not plead unsound mind during the trial.
• The medical evidence (Ex.P8) showed that her injuries were self-inflicted, and she was conscious and able to speak when questioned.
• The defence theory - that PW.2 conspired to kill her and the children - was unbelievable and contradicted by evidence.

Applicability of Section 309 IPC

The Court noted that Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) was repealed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, since the offence was committed before the repeal, the conviction under Section 309 IPC was upheld. The Court held that this issue was academic, as the sentence for Section 302 IPC (imprisonment for life) would run concurrently with the sentence under Section 309 IPC.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court:

• The appellant was held guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her two children and under Section 309 IPC for attempting to commit suicide.
• The imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 309 IPC were upheld, along with the fine of Rs. 1,000 for each offence.
• The appellant was directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court was directed to issue warrants for her arrest.
• The period already undergone by the appellant was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C..

What This Means For Similar Cases

Stringent Standards for Proving Unsound Mind

This judgment reinforces that claims of psychological distress or unsound mind must be strictly proven with medical or legal evidence.

• Courts will not presume unsound mind merely because the accused is a mother or claims to have acted under stress.
• The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish legal insanity under Section 84 IPC or lack of mens rea.
• Brutality of the act and deliberate intent will weigh heavily against claims of psychological abnormality.

Reliability of Extra-Judicial Confessions

• Oral confessions made immediately after the offence to witnesses are highly reliable and can be corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
• Delayed confessions (e.g., recorded 20 days after the incident) may be viewed with suspicion, but their truthfulness can be established through corroborative evidence.
• The twin test from Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar remains the gold standard for assessing extra-judicial confessions.

No Leniency for Infanticide

• Motherhood does not grant immunity from criminal liability. Courts will not hesitate to convict a mother for infanticide if intent and mens rea are proven.
• Precedents like Chunni Bai are fact-specific and cannot be blindly applied where the act is brutal and deliberate.
• Motive (e.g., frustration, marital discord) is relevant but not determinative if the act itself proves intentional killing.

Retrospective Application of Beneficial Legislation

• The repeal of Section 309 IPC under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not affect convictions for offences committed before the repeal.
• Courts will not adjudicate academic issues where the primary conviction (e.g., under Section 302 IPC) subsists.