IMPORTANT POINT
The brutal and callous way in which a murder is committed is relevant in defence of legal insanity but it, by itself, is not indicative of a deceased mind. That has to be taken along with the medical evidence.

JUDGMENT

Bhat, J.-Appellant herein has been convicted by the Sessions Court, Trichur under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Since he has no counsel of his own Sri P.V. Chandramohan, a member of this Bar, has been appointed State Brief. We have heard learned counsel and the learned public prosecutor.

2. Appellant was living with his wife, now deceased Thanka, his mother and children including P.W. 3 in his house in Thoravu Village. He had a job in a tile factory. About two years previously, he disappeared from the Village and returned only a couple of months before the occurrence. He had no employment. He entertained suspicion about the chastity of his wife and used to quarrel with her. On 3.4.1982, almost throughout the day, he was sitting in the adjoining compound of P.W. 4. In the afternoon, he told P.Ws. 4 and others that there was somebody inside his house and wanted them to verify. On the persuation of P.W. 4, P.W. 12 and another boy, Mohandas, looked inside the house and not finding anybody came and reported so to the appellant. At about 3 p.m., appellant rose and went inside his house. At that time, his wife, Thanka, was in the northern courtyard. Appellant came out from the kitchen with M.O. 1 chopper and inflicted cut injuries on the neck of Thanka who cried out. Appellant chopped off her head, went east and entered the Panchayat road holding the head in his left hand and blood-stained chopper in his right hand and walked along the road. The occurrence or at any rate the major part of it was witnessed by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 (who turned hostile) and 4. P.Ws. 5 to 8 saw the appellant going away holding the head of his wife and the chopper followed by a crowd. P.W. 8 also followed. P.W. 1 proceeded to the Pudukad Police Station on a cycle and gave Ext. P1 statement at 3.30 p.m. That was recorded by the S.I. of Police, P.W. 16 and he registered a case as Crime No. 75/1982 against the appellant under Ext. P1 (a) F.I.R. By the time the case was registered, appellant reached the police station. As instructed by P.W. 16, appellant placed the head on the steps of the station and the chopper by the side of the wall. P.W. 16 arrested the appellant and seized M.O. 1 chopper and the blood-stained mundu worn by the appellant, M.O. 2, under Ext. P 3 mahazar attested by P.W. 8.

3. P.W. 17, C.I. of Police, took up investigation. He held inquest over the head of Thanka in the presence of P.W. 9 and other Panchayatdars, questioned P.W. 8 and prepared Ext. P4 inquest report. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, held inquest over the bead less trunk of Thanka in the presence of P.W. 11 and other Panchayatdars, questioned P.Ws. 1, 3 and other children of the appellant, seized M.Os. 3 to 6, clothes found on the body, and M.O.7 sample of blood-stained earth from the scene and prepared Ext. P6 inquest report. The head and the trunk were sent to the Pudukad Government Hospital through police constables, P.Ws. 14 and 15 respectively, for post-mortem examination. Appellant was sent for medical examination. P.W. 10, who examined him, issued Ext. P8 certificate. Post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 10 on 44.1983. Other witnesses were questioned. Material objects were caused to be sent for chemical examination. Plan of the scene was got prepared through the Village Assistant, P.W. 13. Investigation was completed by P.W. 17 and his successor, P.W. 18 laid the charge.

4. When questioned by the trial court, appellant pleaded ignorance of the occurrence. However, cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was directed to establish that before and at the time of the occurrence the appellant was a person of unsound mind and was protected under section 84 Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exts. Dl to D6 were marked. Trial court accepted the prosecution case as proved beyond reasonable doubt and rejected the defence under section 84 Indian Penal Code and convicted and sen