HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice K Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, on Friday acquitted a woman, Banothu Bharati alias Lasya alias Bujji, in the murder of her seven-month-old daughter.
The bench set aside the judgment passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet, convicting the woman under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing her to death on April 11, 2025.
The high court held that although the act was physically attributable to the accused, the evidence on record clearly established that she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the incident, rendering her incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of her act. The bench extended to her the benefit of Section 84 IPC (unsoundness of mind) and ordered her acquittal.
The court faulted the trial court for ignoring clear indicators of mental illness, despite such material being available from the very inception of the case, including in the FIR and prosecution evidence. The bench noted that no psychiatric evaluation was ordered as mandated under Sections 328-335 of CrPC, even though the accused’s abnormal conduct, obsessive religious rituals, delusional beliefs, and prior psychiatric treatment were evident.
A mitigation investigation report and an expert psychiatric evaluation from the Institute of Mental Health, Erragadda, conducted during the appellate stage, diagnosed the woman with paranoid schizophrenia, a chronic and episodic mental disorder. The court held that subsequent fitness to stand trial did not negate legal insanity at the time of the offence.
The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen theory and alleged recovery of the weapon. However, key witnesses, including the husband of the accused (PW-1) and his brother (PW-2), turned hostile and admitted that the appellant had been suffering from mental illness and had been taken for psychiatric treatment.
The bench found the alleged motive, rooted in superstition relating to “sarpadosham”, to be irrational and inadequately proved, observing that such bizarre beliefs actually reinforced the defence plea of unsoundness of mind rather than criminal intent.
Holding that the “rarest of rare” test was not satisfied, the court ruled that the death sentence imposed without a proper mental health inquiry and individualised mitigation assessment was constitutionally unsustainable. It reiterated that brutality of the act cannot substitute proof of mens rea.
Setting aside the conviction and death sentence, the court cancelled bail bonds, if any, and ordered refund of fine amount, if paid, after expiry of appeal period.