Telangana HC sets aside death penalty of woman, cites psychosis in infant killing 'Sarpadosham' case: 'Looked like a snake'

During the appellate proceedings, Bharathi’s counsel highlighted her long history of mental illness. (Representative image)

• Telangana High Court overturns woman's death sentence for killing infant daughter
• Court finds her actions stemmed from severe mental illness, not criminal intent
• She will be moved to a mental health institute for continued care and treatment

Did our AI summary help?

In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court set aside the death sentence awarded to a woman convicted of killing her seven-month-old daughter during what prosecutors described as a ritual sacrifice linked to beliefs in 'Sarpadosham'.

The court said that her actions stemmed from a severe mental illness and amounted to “psychotic ideation rather than criminal design”.

Allowing her appeal, the court held that although the act was attributable to the accused, it did not amount to an offence in the eyes of law, extending to her the benefit of the general exception under Section 84 of the IPC.

From conviction to reversal

The case dates back to April 15, 2021, when Banothu Bharathi allegedly carried out a ritual at her home in Suryapet after becoming convinced she was afflicted by a curse.

Influenced by superstitious beliefs and videos she had watched online, she is accused of slitting her infant daughter’s throat and cutting her tongue as an offering meant to rid herself of the supposed affliction.

Four years later, in April 2025, a sessions court at Suryapet found her guilty of murder and imposed the death penalty, terming the offence “rarest of rare”. That finding, however, came under sharp scrutiny during the appeal.

Judges question the trial court

A Division Bench comprising Justice K Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy said it was “astonished” that the trial court had not examined the mental health of the accused despite material on record suggesting serious psychiatric illness.

The judges observed that “though the act is attributable to the appellant-accused, the same does not constitute an offence in the eye of law”, adding that the overall conduct pointed away from a calculated plan and towards a mind overtaken by delusion.

Medical history takes centre stage

During the appellate proceedings, Bharathi’s counsel highlighted her long history of mental illness. Acting on this submission, the High Court appointed a senior mitigation investigator and ordered a detailed mitigation investigation report.

It also directed the superintendent of the Institute of Mental Health to form a team to evaluate her psychological condition.

The court noted that medical records showed a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia as early as 2017 and that she had undergone sustained treatment. It also took into account that she was in a state of postpartum vulnerability at the time of the incident.

One detail weighed heavily with the Bench: the husband’s statement that Bharathi had told him the child “looked like a snake and so she killed [her]”.

According to the court, these “perceptual distortions and delusional beliefs” were consistent with psychosis-induced hallucinations and a loss of contact with reality.

Motive without design

Rejecting the prosecution’s theory of a conscious motive, the judges said the alleged reason for the act was “rooted in irrational beliefs and bizarre conduct”.

Such a foundation, the court said, did not support an inference of a planned or deliberate crime but instead showed “unsoundness of mind at the time of the occurrence”.

The mitigation report further concluded that the act resulted from “severe psychotic compulsion” rather than any exercise of free will or volitional control.

Not beyond reform, but not free

While acquitting Bharathi of all charges, the High Court made it clear that release into society would be unsafe. It noted that she had earlier been convicted of attempting to murder her husband when she was out on bail.

Setting aside the death penalty, the Bench held that the materials before it did not justify a conclusion that the accused was beyond reform.

At the same time, it ordered that she be moved from Chanchalguda Prison to the mental health institute at Erragadda for continued care and treatment.

To ensure safeguards, the court directed the district collector to periodically supervise her treatment in accordance with the Mental Healthcare Act, underscoring that the tragedy arose from psychiatric vulnerability rather than deliberate criminal intent.