SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1033

2010 (7) Supreme 760
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Sudhakaran — Appellant
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2007
Decided on : 26-10-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The crucial point of time for the purpose of section 84, IPC is the time when the offence is committed.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Medical evidence not showing anything to show that the appellant was mentally insane at the time of murder – For claiming the benefit of the defence of insanity in law, the appellant would have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the crime was committed, as not to know the nature of the act. (Para 16)

        1843 RR 59: 8ER 718(HL); AIR 1964 SC 1563 – Relied upon

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – The crucial point of time is the time when the offence is committed. (Para 19)

        (1970) 3 SCC 533 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. The appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife.

        2. The appellant approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal which was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

        No interference warranted with the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and final order in Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2003 dated 21.10.2005 whereby the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant and thereby affirmed his conviction under Section 302 IPC as held by the trial court vide judgment dated 30.11.2002.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeal are:

The appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife on 3.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. He had killed his wife by assaulting her with a chopper on her neck in the bedroom of his house. There is no direct evidence of the murder. However, the factum of death of the appellant’s wife by the injuries noticed in post mortem report (Exb.P5) is not disputed. The appellant had taken the defence of insanity based on Section 84 IPC. He had examined four witnesses in support of his defence. Now, the appellant had claimed the defence of insanity at the time of murder; no such plea was taken at the time of the trial. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant had approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2003. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by the judgment dated 21.10.2005. It is this judgment which is impugned before us in the present appeal.

3. We may now notice the prosecution version as it emerges through the evidence of PW1 and PW5. It was alleged that on 3.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. The appellant with the intention of killing his wife, namely, Ajitha @ Poonamma had struck her on her neck with a chopper when she was in the bedroom of his house which is named ‘Kallumkuzhi’, bearing No.289 situated in ward No. IX of Kanjikuzhy panchayat. After committing the murder, the appellant came out of the house and met PW1 and PW5 who were sitting in front of their house. PW1 is the son of PW5. At the time when the appellant approached them he was carrying his child in one arm. He asked PW5 as to whether he could hold the child. When PW5 stepped towards the appellant to take the child, he saw that the appellant was carrying a chopper in the other hand. Immediately PW1 and his father rushed into their house and closed the door. At that time the appellant was seen roaming around their house. He was trying to lay down the child in a lean-to attached to their house. At that stage, PW1 had pointed the beam of a torch on to the appellant, through the window. He saw, in the torch light, that the shirt of the appellant was blood stained and he was also carrying a blood stained chopper. PW1 then came out of his house and went to the nearby house of PW2 and narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter PW1 and PW2 together went to the adjacent house of PW3. When they came back together, they saw that appellant had left the house of PW1. At that stage they were told by PW5 that the appellant had come after killing his wife. According to PW5, the appellant had confessed to the crime. Thereafter all the people in the nearby houses got together and went to the house of the appellant where they found that his wife Ajitha was lying on a cot in her bedroom with blood splattered all over her. They also found that there was no movement in the body of Ajitha. It is further the case of the prosecution that when all the neighbours had gathered in the house of the appellant he had confessed to all of them that he had killed his wife.

4. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement Exb.P1 made by PW1 wherein he narrated the incident as stated above. This witness PW1 has also identified M.O.1 knife which he had seen in the hand of the appellant on the evening of 3.11.2000. PW2 also gave a similar statement. He further stated that the appellant had come to him and asked him to look after the child as he was going to the police station. He is alleg






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top