Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Hariprasad, M.R. Anitha, JJ.
Kuryachan - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 560 of 2012 (D)
Decided On : 06-01-2021
INSANITY DEFENSE - CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 84 IPC, 1860 - BURDEN OF PROOF - [UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND] - [MURDER CASE] - [S. 84 IPC, S. 105 Evidence Act, S. 4 Evidence Act, S. 101 Evidence Act] - The court analyzed the burden of proof in cases of plea of unsoundness of mind and incapacity to know the consequences of the acts done by the accused. The court emphasized the legal insanity and the distinction from medical insanity. It highlighted the burden of proof on the accused and the presumption of absence of circumstances under S. 105 of the Evidence Act. The court also discussed the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity and the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused. The judgment referred to various legal provisions and case laws to establish the legal framework applied by the court in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of his neighbor. The prosecution's case was based on the accused's intentional stabbing of the deceased due to a previous enmity. The accused claimed the benefit of Section 84 IPC, stating that he was not mentally sound at the time of the offense. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to consider whether the accused was entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC. After re-examination of witnesses and evidence, the accused was found guilty again and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal was filed against this conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused failed to establish his entitlement for the benefit under Section 84 IPC. The evidence presented by the defense, including the testimony of witnesses and medical records, did not prove that the accused was mentally unsound at the time of the offense. The court also found that the accused's subsequent conduct, such as confessing to the crime and handing over the weapon, did not indicate insanity. The court concluded that the accused was not entitled to the protection under Section 84 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC, claiming unsoundness of mind at the time of the offense. The court also addressed the failure of the investigating officer to conduct an investigation into the mental state of the accused and whether this caused prejudice to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof in cases of plea of insanity rests on the accused, and the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offense was committed. The court emphasized the distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity, and the need for the accused to establish the unsoundness of mind. The court also discussed the duty of the investigating officer to investigate the mental condition of the accused if previous history of insanity is revealed during the investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and altering it to Section 304 Part-1 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000, with the fine amount to be given as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Set off was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Anitha, J.
1. This is the second round of appeal against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C No. 199/2004 on the file of Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha.
2. Prosecution case can be summarized as follows:
3. PWs 1 to 8 were Examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked and MOs 1 to 10 were identified and marked from the side of the prosecution. Thereafter accused was questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C. He almost admitted the incriminating facts and circumstances put to him and pleaded lack of memory and absence of knowledge with regard to some other factors. He also filed an unsigned separate statement stating that he surrendered his life before Christ and so many wonders would happen and he has been implicated not on account of his own intention. He had not committed any offence and the Christ is the only protector and he is submitting the entire case before Christ who know about the facts of the case etc. Finally on hearing both sides, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
4. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred Crl.A. No. 76/2009 before this Court. As per the judgment dated 04.10.2011 the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of conviction and sentence and the case was remanded to the court below to consider whether accused is entitled to the benefit u/s. 84 IPC.
5. After remand, court below on enquiry was satisfied that he is fit to stand trial.
6. PWs 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were re-called and cross examined as part of proving the defence. DW1 was further examined and Exts.X1 and X1(a) were also marked. Thereafter, on hearing both sides the learned Sessions Judge again found the accused guilty u/s. 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s.302 IPC. Against the conviction and sentence this appeal has been filed.
7. Notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent appeared through Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Alex M. Thombra. Lower court records were called for. Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, Senior counsel appeared for the appellant. Heard both sides.
8. The main argument of the learned senior counsel for the accused is that the appellant/accused ought to have given the protection u/s. 84 IPC since it has come out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that accused is not mentally sound. It is also his contention that none of the relatives of the accused has been questioned by the investigating officer to ascertain the soundness of the mind of the accused. Investigating officer did not subject the accused to medical examination and place that evidence before the court and that has caused serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Hence benefit of doubt on that count ought have been given to the accused. It is also his contention that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in toto is quite insufficient to find the accused guilty in a grievous offence u/s. 302 IPC.
9. In order to claim the benefit u/s. 84 IPC, 1860 the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563], Bapu Alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 68], Shibu v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 323], Abilash v. State of Kerala, 2015 (3) KLJ 610.
10. The burden of proof in criminal Justice system is always upon the prosecution and that burden never shifts. But in a case of plea of unsoundness of mind and consequent incapacity to know the consequences of the acts done by the accused, the burden is upon the accused. Section 84 of IPC (45 of 1860), provides that nothing is an o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
