Back
1988 Supreme(Ker) 130
Judges : FATHIMA BEEVI,RADHAKRISHNA MENON
RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : Crl.A. No. 386 of 1985
Decided On : 03/17/1988
Advocates Appeared :
G. Krishnakumari; For Appellant Public Prosecutor; For Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful establishment of the 'insanity defence' under S.84 I.P.C., which entitles the accused to acquittal if it is proven that, at the time of the offence, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law due to unsoundness of mind.
Headnote:
Insanity Defence - Murder - S.302 I.P.C. - S.84 I.P.C. - 84. 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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law - The appellant has successfully established the 'insanity defence' set up by him. He therefore is entitled to acquittal by virtue of S.84 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appealed against the conviction for the offence punishable under S.302 I.P.C. for intentionally inflicting stab injuries resulting in death. The accused denied the charges, claiming insanity at the crucial time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted the injuries resulting in death. The court also considered the insanity defence and found that the appellant was entitled to acquittal by virtue of S.84 I.P.C.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of the insanity defence and the interpretation of S.84 I.P.C. in relation to the accused's mental state at the time of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle enshrined in S.84 I.P.C., which states that an act 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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, is not an offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant based on the successful establishment of the 'insanity defence' under S.84 I.P.C. The appellant was directed to be detained in a mental hospital in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912.
1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1984 Sessions Court, Alleppey has filed the appeal challenging the judgment by which he has been convicted for the offence punishable under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is this: The appellant-accused at about 6 p.m. on 28-7-1983 intentionally or knowingly inflicted stab injuries on one Krishna Kurup which resulted in his death. The incident took place in the house of PW. 7, the maternal aunt of the accused. The accused was arrested from the piece of the incident on the same day. The accused denied the charges, the plea being that of insanity at the crucial time.
3. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.15 and proved Exts. P1 to P 13 and identified 6 M.Os. Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on the defence side.
4. P. Ws 2 to 5 and 7 are the eye witnesses. Of these eye witnesses, P. W. 2 has been disbelieved by the Sessions Judge while PW7 turned hostile The Sessions Judge therefore has discarded their evidence The evidence tendered by P. Ws 3,4 and 5 was accepted.
5. It is clear from the evidence of P. Ws 3, 4 and 5 that they have witnessed the stabbing. Their evidence stands corroborated by the evidence of the doctor, P.W.6 and the dying declaration proved by P. W.1 who gave the first information to the police. P. W. 6 proved Ext. P2 postmortem certificate which contains the description of as many as eight injuries; of which injury No. 6, which indisputably had penetrated into the chest involving the blood vessels, according to the doctor, is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. This injury, the doctor has deposed, could be caused by M.O.1.
6. On a scrutiny of the evidence aforesaid we are satisfied that the Sessions Judge has rightly held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant-accused who inflicted the injuries which resulted in the death of Krishna Kurup. We therefore cannot interfere with the above finding.
7. The matter however does not step here. The "insanity defence", to get himself extricated from the charge of murder of Krishna Kurup punishable under S.302 I P.C.. raised by the appellant requires to be considered. in proof of this plea the appellant has relied on the evidence of DWs 1 and land the documents Exts. D1 to D3. DW1 is the Second Class Magistrate, Alleppey who had forwarded Ext. D) petition to the Superintendent of Sub jail for his remarks. Ext. P12 is the reply DW1 got from the jail Superintendent. On receipt of Ext. P12, DWI dropped further proceedings and that it is so can be seen from the endorsement on Ext. P12 namely "no further action seen necessary at this stage". The endorsement is marked as Ext. P12 (a). Exts. D2 and D3 would show that the appellant was an inpatient of the mental hospital during the period from 28-2-1983 till he was discharged on 8-4-1983. D.W. 2 is the doctor who had treated the appellant for mental disease during the above mentioned period. In his evidence he has stated thus:
"...The accused might have been suffering from schizophrenia. On 6-3-1984 I had occasion to examine the accused as ordered by this court. At that time also his ailment was diagonised as schizophrenia. On 4-4-1984 I was examined before this court. Schizophrenia is the most dreaded form of mental disease. The clinical symptoms of this disease can be controlled nowadays by administration of modern treatment. If the patient is given treatment within six months of the onset of the first symptoms, the disease can be completely cored. So far as the accused is concerned a complete cure is not possible since he had discontinued the treatment several times. Any sort of abnormal behaviour can be expected from the accused. But if the treatment is continued by him one can expect him to have some sort of social life. Ext. D2 was issued by me on 13-8-1980 " (emphasis supplied)
8. The Sessions Judge therefore has rightly considered the insanity defence
