New Delhi, Apr 28 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday modified the sentence of a Chhattisgarh woman convicted for killing her daughters observing the motive behind the act was not proved.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh brought down the more heinous charge of Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC.

Also Read | 'Ensure ATMs Dispense INR 100 and INR 200 Denomination Banknotes on a Regular Basis': RBI to Banks.

She was found to have spent over nine years in custody and the top court sentenced her to the period undergone without fine, directing her release as a result.

"What we have also noted is that the state did not make any serious endeavours to try to ascertain the motive or the intention of the appellant during the investigation, in spite of all the witnesses portraying a very normal domestic environment in the family and the appellant to be a normal person which indicated absence of any factor which prompted the appellant to commit the crime," the bench said.

Also Read | YUGM Conclave: Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Participate in Strategic Conclave at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi on April 29.

The bench observed the investigating officer appeared to be satisfied over the evidence of the witnesses, recovery of the weapon and the medical evidence in attempting to prove the woman committed the murder without investigating the motive behind the act.

On June 5, 2015, at around 9 am in Bharadkala Village, Bemetara District of Chhattisgarh, the woman fatally attacked her daughters with an iron crowbar.

The incident was witnessed by the sister-in-law of the woman who lived in the same house.

The woman denied the committing the crime and claimed she had no knowledge of the events as was possessed "by some invisible power".

The top court, however, held the woman caused the death of her children by hitting them with the weapon on their heads.

"The crucial question, however, is whether she had the intention to cause death of her children or had the intention to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death or whether she had the conscious knowledge that it was imminently dangerous that in all probability, it would cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and committed the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury?" the bench asked.

Trial courts were asked to be mindful of pleas of accused, especially in cases of homicide, and in cases where they were unable to explain the events.

"If such circumstances emerge in course of the trial which remain inexplicable and bizarre as in the present case, the court, in our opinion, even if the accused opts to remain silent, should ask such questions to the witnesses, as may be necessary to elicit the truth by invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act, since the court has to be satisfied that the offence alleged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt not only in respect of actus reus (constituent element of crime) but also mens rea (intent)," it said.

The top court said if the accused at the time of commission of crime was incapable of making a conscious and an informed decision or suffered from certain mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind even if temporarily, it should put a question mark on their "intention".

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)