1st Year B.B.A., L.L.B.

– Semester-III (2021)
Law of Crimes Paper I: Indian Penal Code-I
1st -Internal Assessment IRAC Analysis
“Kumari Chandra v. The State of Rajasthan”

NAME: N. Sai Srijan

PRN: 20010126246

DIVISION: C

COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2020-2025

1
2018 (3) RLW 2382 (Raj.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

(BEFORE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ AND GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.)

KUMARI CHANDRA ………………………………………………

Appellant;

Versus

STATE OF RAJASTHAN…...……………………………………Respondents.

Decided on 1 August 2018

Table of Content

2
 S

CASE FACTS...........................................................................................................................4

Procedural History................................................................................................................4

Death and injury to children due to the accused’s acts.........................................................4

PMS used as Defence of Insanity under §84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860............................4

ISSUES......................................................................................................................................5

CONTENTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES................................................................................6

Arguments for the Accused-Appellant...................................................................................6

Arguments for the Respondents.............................................................................................6

RATIO.......................................................................................................................................8

Prosecution witnesses’ statements claiming presence of motive not substantiated..............8

Medical Literature on PMS used to define legal insanity.....................................................8

The Accused has a right to probabalize her defence by the standard of preponderance of
probabilities...........................................................................................................................8

ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................9

Absence of Motive has been wrongfully equated to a weak prosecution case......................9

Crucial factor of time has been ignored................................................................................9

Medical Insanity considered instead of Legal Insanity.......................................................10

Foreign Jurisdictions on PMS and Diminished Capacity...................................................10

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................12

3
 CASE FACTS

Procedural History

Kumari Chandra, the accused-appellant in the given case was charged and convicted of
offences under §§302, 307, and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the Trial Court. She
later filed for a criminal appeal under §374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High
Court of Rajasthan.

Death and injury to children due to the accused’s acts

On 11th August 1981, a report was filed stating that the accused pushed two boys and one girl
into a well with the intention to kill them after taking them there on the pretext of showing
them a local temple. One boy and one girl were rescued but with injuries while the other boy
drowned to his death. The accused was caught immediately by a group of people near the
well.

PMS used as Defence of Insanity under §84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

The defence in the present case has tried to establish a defence of insanity as provided under
§84 of the Indian Penal Code claiming that the accused suffered from legal insanity due to
her severe PMS or Pre-Menstrual Syndrome and should be acquitted. Originally, the accused
in the Trial Court used §313 of the CrPC to establish a specific defence of lack of enmity
against the children. However, no corroborative evidence was brought on record to establish
the defence of insanity due to PMS and instead reliance was placed on witness statements and
medical journals. This defence subsequently failed, and an appeal was filed in the High
Court.

4
 ISSUES

The issues discussed by the High Court in the appeals were as follows:

1. Under §84 of the Indian Penal Code, would Pre-Menstrual Syndrome constitute legal
insanity and defect of reason.

2. Whether the accused, at the time of the incident, was suffering from such legal insanity,
unsoundness of mind, or defect of reason to constitute and establish the defense of legal
insanity under §84.

5
 CONTENTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments for the Accused-Appellant:

The Appellant had contended that the prosecution has failed to prove motive of the accused
to commit a crime. They contended that the accused would not have committed murder of
innocent children as she did not have enmity against the children as proven by the fact that
she used to take walks with the children not causing any harm to them. Additionally, they
contended that the accused, if found to have committed the crime, should get the benefit of
§84 of IPC as she was of unsound mind due to her PMS which meant she was legally insane.
To establish this, the Defence relied on testimonies of Doctor witnesses who treated the
accused for her illness. In their statements, the doctors claimed that in certain severe cases
PMS may lead to the woman becoming irritated and violent with suicidal tendencies and a
capacity to push children into the well. However, during cross examination it was ascertained
that the witnesses were not experts of menstrual diseases, and their statements were made on
separate literature they brought to the court. This literature was based on Medical Journals
and Research Articles written by medical practitioners not in India but based in foreign
countries. Furthermore, the literature discussed the relevance of PMS in criminal proceedings
including the concepts of PMS being used as a diminished capacity defence and a correlation
between the number of women being caught during PMS and their crimes like shoplifting or
prostitution. The appellant also claimed that she got her period in police custody two days
after the incident however no evidence was placed on record for the same.

Arguments for the Respondents:

The primary contention of the respondents was that the accused had committed a crime which
did in fact constitute a mens rea and actus reus. They argued that eyewitnesses saw the
accused with the children immediately before the incident took place. Her physiognomy as
stated by the witnesses matched the one written in the police report. Additionally, it was
contended that the accused was beaten by a group of people near the well which meant that
the accused was caught immediately and placed at the scene of the crime. They further
contended that the accused had a motive to commit the crime. This was due to the fact that
witnesses (parents of the children) claimed the accused did not maintain sound character and
used to regularly visit their houses late at night. Thus, objections raised by the parents led to
the annoyance of the accused who took it out on the children by deliberately causing them to

6
drown. However, these claims were not recorded in police statements and this fact was relied
upon by the Defence to establish their case. Furthermore, the respondents also claim that the
specific plea of insanity can not be accepted as no evidence of such insanity has been placed
on record by the accused. They contend that if in case the accuse did in fact suffer from such
a disorder and took treatment, she should place on record the medical bills and prescriptions
of such treatment.

7
 RATIO

In this particular case, the High Court held that the accused had a valid defence of insanity
under §84 and should therefore be acquitted. Although it recognized the testimonies of the
two surviving children despite their tender age, the court relied on the medical journals and
research articles submitted by the appellants to hold that the condition of PMS constituted
legal insanity. It did so through the following points:

Prosecution witnesses’ statements claiming presence of motive not substantiated

The Court held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses claiming presence of motive
due to the actions of the accused, objections of which later caused annoyance to her, were not
substantiated. This is because the court considered their statements to be unsatisfactory as
they were not previously mentioned in the police statements.

Medical Literature on PMS used to define legal insanity

Although acknowledging the fact that the law on PMS being used as a defence of insanity is
not well established in India, the court accepted the medical literature submitted by the
defence to constitute legal insanity as provided under §84 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Accused has a right to probabalize her defence by the standard of preponderance of
probabilities

The Court also held that under the scope of §84, the accused has a right to probabalize her
defence and it relied on cases to establish that the burden of proof to establish such a defence
is equivalent to that of a civil suit.1 Further, it relied on several cases to hold that for a plea of
insanity the accused needs to prove circumstances of insanity up to the standard of a prudent
man getting a reasonable doubt as to the presence of ingredients of such an offence, 2 and to
hold that to prove insanity at the crucial time of occurring of an offence the preceding,
attendant, and subsequent circumstances are taken into consideration.3

1
Elavarasan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/0730/2011; See also Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v.
State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0835/2002.
2
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0068/1964.
3
Id. at 9.

8
 ANALYSIS

Absence of Motive has been wrongfully equated to a weak prosecution case

The High Court has relied on the absence of a motive, as established by the lack of objections
of the parents against the accused in police statements, to hold that the prosecution has been
unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime. It is
worth mentioning that there is an abundance of cases setting a precedent that a crime can be
committed without a motive. Ocular evidence, that is found reliable, trustworthy, and
corroborated, is considered enough to convict an accused even in the absence of a motive. 4
Motive is not a sine qua non for a prosecution’s case,5 and when evidence against the accused
is direct, cogent, and reliable, then motive is not of importance.6 In the present case, several
eyewitnesses, including the children, claim to have seen the accused push the children into
the well. She was also placed at the scene of the crime before and after the incident. The
children were in her presence from the school to the well and soon after the incident she was
caught by a group of people placing her at the crime scene. Such evidence along with the
eyewitnesses identifying the accused and matching her physiognomy in their statements
constitutes a strong case for prosecution.

Crucial factor of time has been ignored

In the present case it is important to note that the crime occurred when the children were
pushed down a well and therefore the most crucial time to establish the state of mind of the
accused is when the crime occurred, i.e., when she pushed the children. In order to establish
such state of mind, the preceding, attendant, and subsequent circumstances need to be
considered.7 Whenever a plea under §105 of the Evidence Act is taken, the burden of
establishing such a defence rests on the accused and is discharged when preponderance of
probabilities is shown on the basis of material on record. As per the facts of the case, the
accused did not portray any violent tendencies before or after the incident. Additionally, no
evidence was placed on record by the defence to prove that the accused was suffering from
PMS at the time of the incident. Even the surrounding circumstances, which include the facts

4
Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 2003 SC 3975; See also, Yunis alias Kariya v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539.
5
Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1992 ( 1 ) Crimes 282.
6
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460.
7
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0068/1964.

9
that eyewitnesses spotted the accused taking the children to the well and later running away
from the scene of the crime, show the reasoning ability that the accused possessed during the
incident.8 This crucial fact was overlooked by the court which considered the submissions of
medical journals and doctor testimonies which do not provide strong evidence of
unsoundness of mind as discussed below.

Medical Insanity considered instead of Legal Insanity

It is important to note that §84 of the Indian Penal Code, embodies the Mc’Naughten Rules. 9
As per these rules, focus is placed on the test of right and wrong or the defect of reason rather
than irresistible impulse. Whenever an accused is to seek acquittal using the defence of
insanity under §84, legal insanity needs to be proved instead of medical insanity. 10 The word
“insanity” has no exact definition and covers various degrees of mental illnesses. 11 The courts
are only concerned legal insanity, i.e., loss of reasoning power, rather than medical insanity
which means any person being mentally ill and therefore not ipso facto exempted from
criminal liability.12 In the present case, research articles written in medical journals and
statements of unreliable doctors were used to establish that the severe case of PMS suffered
by the accused constituted legal insanity. On the contrary, unevolved research and
testimonies of non-experts cannot establish the medical illness of PMS constituting legal
insanity leading to defect of reason and unsoundness of mind. The test of a prudent man
getting reasonable doubt with regards to presence of ingredients of an offence is based on the
preponderance of probabilities.13 The court presumes that circumstances of insanity do not
exist, and such an insanity only refers to legal insanity which if not established cannot be
used as a valid defence under §84. A prudent man would thus not consider the submissions to
be a valid defence for legal insanity.

Foreign Jurisdictions on PMS and Diminished Capacity

In the Medical Journals and research articles that were submitted, several jurisdictions
provided the defence of Diminished Capacity to women suffering from PMS. The Research
also compared the causal link between the number of women suffering from PMS being
caught and their offences like prostitution, shoplifting, alcohol abuse, etc. However, no
8
Math, S. B., Kumar, C. N., & Moirangthem, S. (2015), Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future, Indian
journal of psychological medicine, vol. 37,4 (2015): 381-7.
9
R v. Mc’Naughten, (1843) 10 Cl & F 200 (T.A.C.).
10
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495.
11
Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109.
12
Bapu Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66.
13
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0068/1964.

10
settled law provided for complete acquittal, especially for women. Indian Law and criminal
jurisprudence would therefore provide for a reduced sentencing at best instead of complete
exoneration.

11
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe the High Court has not considered the consequences of its judgement
in terms of the jurisprudence related to the defence of insanity, especially when claimed due
to reasons like PMS. Although apparently hailed as a progressive judgement, this decision
has far-reaching consequences on the scope and context in which §84 is used as a defence for
women. In a seemingly patriarchal society like India, women are still considered incapable of
committing crimes. Developing an appropriate jurisprudence and well-established law
without undermining the basics of criminal jurisprudence would be essential to ensure
provisions like §84 are not misused.

12