The judgment establishes the principle that legal insanity, as defined under Section 84 IPC, can exempt a person from criminal responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) by the accused in S.C. No. 794 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, has been preferred challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him in the said case.

2. A boy aged 10 years was killed brutally in an occurrence that took place on the street near his house while he was returning home from the nearby shop. The accused is a person residing in the neighbourhood of the residence of the deceased. One Ajithkumar was occupying a building owned by the father of the deceased on a rental arrangement. There was a physical altercation between the accused and Ajithkumar on a previous occasion. The case of the prosecution is that on account of the enmity of the accused towards Ajithkumar, the accused requested the father of the deceased to evict Ajithkumar from his house and since the father of the deceased did not pay heed to the said request of the accused, on 26.04.2016, at about 6.45 a.m. the accused stabbed multiple times on different parts of the body of the boy and he succumbed to the injuries within a short while on reaching the hospital.

3. A case was registered in connection with the occurrence by Ernakulam Central Police at 8.30 a.m. on 26.04.2016 itself as Crime No. 927 of 2016 on the basis of the information furnished by one Anie Joesph, an eye witness to the occurrence and the case was investigated by PW-25, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central Police Station. After investigation, the final report was filed on the aforesaid lines against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. As the accused denied the charge framed and read over to him by the Court of Session when committed for trial, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 26 and proved through them Exts.P1 to P18 documents. MOs 1 to 6 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. As the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the accused as DWs. 1 and 2 and a document was marked as Ext.D1. The Court of Session, thereupon, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found the appellant guilty of the offence, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine. The accused is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Session.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction entered, and sentence passed against the accused by the trial court is sustainable.

7. The learned counsel for the accused did not challenge the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the death of the victim is a homicide or that it is the accused who caused the death of the deceased. The serious challenge raised by the learned counsel was against the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. It was asserted by the learned counsel that the accused was a person suffering from legal insanity at the time of commission of the offence and he was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. To bring home the said point, the learned counsel argued that the motive alleged by the prosecution for the accused to commit the crime is too trivial a motive to commit a crime of the instant nature. The learned counsel has also brought to our notice the conduct of the accused after the occurrence. It was pointed out that the accused never attempted to escape from the scene and he was casually walking through the same street after the occurrence, as if nothing had happened. It was argued by the learned counsel based on the evidence tendered by DWs. 1 and 2 and t