Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. Sundresh and N. Sathish Kumar, JJ.
Kali @ Kalidoss @ Kalirajan —Appellant
versus
The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Kezhavalavu Police Station —Respondent
Crl. A. (MD). No.209 of 2016
Decided on 4.9.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. R. Boomirajan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Duraipandian, Additional Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Crucial time for deciding availability of benefit under Section 84 of IPC is a time when offence was committed and nature of crime.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 84—Mental insanity of appellant—Crucial time for deciding availability of benefit under Section 84 of IPC is a time when offence was committed and nature of crime—In context of plea of insanity, prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed offence with requisite mens rea and burden of proving that always rests on prosecution from beginning to end of trial—There is a rebuttable presumption that accused was not insane when he committed crime—Nature of burden of proof on accused to prove insanity is no longer higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings—Accused could discharge his burden by showing preponderance of probabilities was in his favour—Onus on part of accused can be discharged by producing evidence as to conduct of accused shortly prior to offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors—Behaviour antecedents and subsequent event of accused may be relevant in finding mental condition at the time of event but not those remote in time. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 341 read with Section 84—Murder and wrongful restraint—Conviction and sentence—Defence plea of mental insanity of appellant—Finding of Psychiatric clearly shows that in fact accused had unsound mind and was not capable of knowing neither of act nor what was he doing either right or contrary to law—Doctors also opined that details of history of current and past of accused could not be obtained—Accused was in his house in a senseless manner and taken to police station—Accused in fact suffered from unsound mind even prior to occurrence—Schizophrenia cannot be developed in a single day to contend that on the date of occurrence accused was alright—Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
N. Sathish Kumar, J.—Aggrieved over the judgment of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 11.01.2016, in S.C.No.282 of 2013, the present appeal has been filed. The Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, 6 months simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and imposed fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, 2 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-
(i) The accused and the deceased are the resident of Keezhavalavu village at Melur. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and PW4 is the son of PW1 and the deceased. Two days prior to 20.12.2011, the accused cattle grazed the deceased paddy, which was objected by the deceased. Agitated over the same, on 20.12.2011, while the deceased was in his field, the accused hit the deceased on his chest and face repeatedly with MO1/Axe. PW1/wife of the deceased, PW2 and PW3 were eye witnesses to the occurrence. The deceased succumbed to injuries.
(ii) PW1 and PW4 immediately rushed to the police station and gave a First Information Report/Ex.P1. PW14, who was the Special Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time, received Ex.P1 and registered a crime in Crime No.196 of 2011 under Sections 241 and 302 IPC and forwarded the First Information Report to PW13, Head Constable and handed over the case to Inspector of Police PW16.
(iii) PW16/The Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P14 in the presence of PW7 and PW8 and also drawn rough sketch/Ex.P15 and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared inquest report/Ex.P16 and gave a requisition to the medical officer to conduct autopsy. He also seized blood stained earth and ordinary earth MO6 and MO7 respectively under Ex.P17 mahazar and examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.
(iv) PW12 the Medical Officer attached to the Melur Government Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:
“Moderately nourished body of a male with fingers and toe nails appears to be pale in colour.(1) Lacerated over right side face (10x3 cm x deep) extending to right sided eye ball to right sided mandible. (2) Lacerated wound left sided neck extending upto left clavicle 10 x 2 x deep. Fracture left clavicle 2 x 1 cm. (3) Lacerated wound over the abdomen 13 x 2 x deep. (4) Lacerated wound left thigh 3 x 3 x 1 cm.
O/E:Skull fracture. Frontal bone present 3 x2x1 cm. Haematoma present frontal lobe 3 x 2 cm. Hyoid normal. Pelvis, pericardium normal, heart right fluid left empty.
Stomach - 150ml of partially cooked food particles present. No specific smell.(NC) 15 ml of bite stained fluid present.”
and issued Ex.P9 postmortem certificate stating that the deceased died due to multiple injuries 4 - 6 hrs prior to autopsy.
(v) PW15/Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science department examined the material objects and issued Ex.P12/Chemical Report and Ex.13/Serologist Report. PW16 in continuation of the investigation recorded the statement of witnesses and on 21.12.2012 at about 9 a.m. arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses and sent the accused to the judicial custody and also recorded the confession and the admissible portion of the confession of the accused is Ex.P7 and seized MO1 under Ex.P8 mahazar and finally laid charge sheet as against the accused for offences as stated earlier.
3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 on his side insanity was pleaded. During trial, on the side of prosecution as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited besides 7 material objects.
4. On the side of the defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined and two docum
