Back
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., G. GIRISH
Vijayamma, W/o. K. V. Raju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.)
The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.452 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge - V, Kottayam. In the aforesaid case, she was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for committing nepoticide. By judgment dated 10.05.2018, she was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 302 of the IPC with a default clause. Challenging the judgement, conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The summary of the prosecution’s version, as reflected in the records, is as follows:
2. Kamalakshi (PW1) and Raghavan (PW2) are octogenarians with four children. Their eldest daughter, Vijayamma, is the accused in this case. The next child is a daughter named Shyla, followed by Shaji (PW4), the father of the deceased, Rahul, a bright 12-year-old boy. Their youngest son by name is Suresh. Vijayamma worked as a nurse for over three decades. She is married to Raju and has three children, who are all employed. Shaji, a graphic designer, was working in Dubai and he had a strained relationship wit
The absence of a clear motive does not negate a murder conviction, and the defence of insanity requires proof of incapacity to understand the nature of the act, which was not established.
The court established that a valid plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC can overturn a conviction if supported by credible medical evidence.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proof for the plea of insanity is on the defence to establish it by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt.
An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for insanity lies with the accused, but a history of mental illness can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
If accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at time he committed offence, evidence placed before Court by accused or by prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in mind of Co....
The accused failed to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence, and motive loses significance in cases based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses.
The prosecution must prove the mental fitness of the accused at the time of the crime; failure to do so leads to acquittal as per Section 84 IPC.
The burden of proving insanity lies with the defense, and every minor mental aberration does not constitute legal insanity.
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
