IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant was same at the time of committting murder of his wife and teen aged son. The prosecution has proved complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant iwth the commission of the crime. There is no substance in his appeal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder of wife and teen aged son by appellant-Benefit of exception in Section 84 on ground of insanity at the time of crime-Evidence act-On onus appellant-No proof of insanity on record-Whether appellant is entitled to benefit of exception under Section 84? (No)-Whether prosecution has proved chain of circumstantial evidence completely? (Yes)-Result-Appeal is dismissed (Words and Phrases : Maxim actus non facit reum nisi mes sit rea i.e. an act is not criminal unless there is criminal intent).
       Held : To ascertain as to whether the accused had committed the crime or not, the trial Court formulated eight points for its determination and after appreciating the evidence, hearing the arguments and taking note of the attending circumstances, concluded that the appellant was guilty for the commission of the crime of murders of his wife and son. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High Court vide the order impugned in this appeal. (Para 4)
       To allay all apprehensions, this Court vide order dated 15.11.1999 directed the Superintendent of the Central Jail, New Central Prison, Bangalore to forward the medical report, if any, concerning him for facilitating the court to ascertain his mental condition. In response, the Senior Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore has submitted the medical report dated 6.12.1999 issued by the psychiatrist of the prson Hospital. In the report it is stated that the appellant was examined and diagnosed as suffering from "moderate depression". He was put on treatment and had shown improvement. At the time of submission of the report his mental condition was stated to be satisfactory. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. The section forms part of Chapter IV dealing with general exceptions. (Paras 6 and 7)
       The principal embodied in the chapter is based upon the maxim "acuts non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", i.e., an act is not criminal unless there is criminal intent. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exception mentioned in the Chapter in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because of the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. (Paras 8 and 9)
       After referring case law
       Held : It is admitted that the appellant in this case, has not led any evidence in proof of the plea of insanity. There is nothing on the record to infer that the accused was of unsound mind at or about the time of occurrence. His behaviour at the time and subsequent to the commission of the crime clearly indicates that he knew and was capable of knowing the nature of the act done by him. Before annoyed with the attitude of the deceased, he appears to have taken a conscious decision of taking them away from the house and committed the crime at a secluded place. He had all faculties to safely reach home and sleep for the night. At no point of time his behavious is shown to be abnormal. The plea, though not strictly but by implication, appears to have been taken by the accused for the first time when his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have found no record allegedly shoing the appellant to be suffering from any mental disease when he is stated to have applied for bail. The plea raised, on the face of it, is after-thought and bereft of any substance. The opinion of the doctor obtained after about 8 years also does not indicate any history of medical disorder of the appellant. Even at the time of examination in the year 1999, he as diagnosed of suffering from "moderate depression" which is likely to be there in the circumstances where such person is confined in prison on the charge of the murder of his wife and son. We are satisfied that the appellant was sane and understood the implications of the act done by him and in no case was having unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, at the relevant time. We are also not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the crime. In its detailed judgment the trial Court has referred to proved circumstances which lead to the only inference of the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Similarly, the High Court, in its detailed judgment, has referred to relevant evidence and the incriminating circumstances. We do not find any ground to draw any other inference in the present case. There is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (Paras 12 to 14)

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Claiming insanity at the time of commission of offence of murdering his own wife Gayathramma and teen aged son Bhaskar, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court by which he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Without leading evidence in support of his claim, the appellant urged that there sufficient material on record which probabilised the existence of circumstances justifying the benefit of the exception as incorcopated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. In order to appreciate the submissions of the appellant, it is relevant to take note of the prosecution case as alleged and proved against him vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. The appellant was a Government servant employed in the Department of Agriculture from the year 1991. He was residing with his wife and son in one of the quarters allotted to him by the Department. The appellant s deceased son was a student of 7th standard at the time of occurrence. On 12.1.1991, the appellant applied to avail casual leave on 14.1.1991. The accused, along with his wife and son, had left his house on 11.1.1991 and gone to Thadagavadi. On 16.1.1991, he took his wife and son along with him on the pretext of showing them Shivanasamudra, a picnic spot where the River Kaveri makes a Shivanasamudra, a picnic half kilogram of applies from Devegowda (PW 11) in a Village shop at Malavalli. At about 9O clock in the morning, the appelant with his wife and son got down from the bus at Satyagola Hand Post where they purchased and consumed tender coconut. All the three thereafter walked on foot towards Shivanasamudra. The accused took his wife and son to the extreme end to show them Gangana Chukki Falls. He led them downwards telling that he would show the beauty of the falls from a very near point. He is alleged to have pushed down Bhaskar from that place who fell on a rock which was 150 feet below. He thereafter caught hold of his wife and forcibly tied her hands with a red waste thread and dragged her to a rock, notwithstanding her pleadings and protests. He tied her saree around the neck of his ife and killed her by tightening the knot. Despite being a picnic spot, he tourist normally went. He left the place of occurrence at 4.30 in the evening, got a bus and went towards Malavalli. He was seen reaching his home at about 7.30 p.m. by Sri Kalaiah (PW 8). On the next day, the appellant left his house and went to Kollegal Rural Police Station in the afternoon where he gave a statement confessing his crime. On the basis of his statement, a case was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. As per his disclosure, made in the statement, the dead body of the wife was recovered from the place pointed out by him. The body of the son was seen lying on the rock/gorge where the police could not reach on the first day. When, on the next day, the body of the child as recovered, he was alive and brought to the Kollegal Hospital and thereafter sent for better treatment in NIMHANS at Bangalore, where the breathed his last on 19.1.1999.

3. On completion of the investigation, the final report as produced, the case committed to the Sessions and charges framed against the appellant. To prove their case, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses. It is conceded that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant accepted that he was residing with his wife and son in the quarters belonging to the Agriculture Department. He also admitted the fact of having applied for casual leave. He admitted to have left his house on the evening of 11.1.1991 ith his wife and son. He denied the charge of having taken his wife and son to Gangaga Chukki Falls and instead stated that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1444

IMPORTANT POINTAppellant was same at the time of committting murder of his wife and teen aged son. The prosecution has proved complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant iwth the commission of the crime. There is no substance in his appeal.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant was same at the time of committting murder of his wife and teen aged son. The prosecution has proved complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant iwth the commission of the crime. There is no substance in his appeal.