1964 Supreme(Mad) 265
Madras High Court
ANANTANARAYAN,NATESAN
In re, Govindswami - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Decided On : 07/16/1964
S. Swamikannu Amicus Curiae Appellant. Public Prosecutor, for the State.
The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time such as is described by S. 84 lay on the accused who claimed the benefit of this exemption.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 84, I.P.C. - BURDEN OF PROOF - INSANITY - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Govindaswami, was convicted of murdering his father, Kondathu Gounder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant claimed the benefit of the exemption under Section 84, I.P.C., arguing that he was of unsound mind at the time of the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had failed to establish that he was of unsound mind at the time of the occurrence. The court held that the evidence showed that the appellant perfectly understood what he was about and that he was doing wrong.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the occurrence. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Section 84, I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time such as is described by S. 84 lay on the accused who claimed the benefit of this exemption.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
NATESAN, J. :- One Govindaswami, who has been, evicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under S. 302, I.P.C. for the murder of his father. Kondathu Gounder, is the appellant.
2. That Kondathu Gounder died of homicidal violence at the hands of the accused prisoner, is established beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. The real question for consideration, however, is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided in S. 84. I.P.C.
3. The deceased, Kondathu Gounder, first married one Kaveri, by whom he had two daughters, Venkatammal and Saraswathi, and two sons, Govindaswami (accused) and Gopal (P.W. 5). The daughters are not yet married. On the death of Kaveri about 10 years prior to the occurrence, he married her sister, Rajammal (P.W. 1). P.W. 1 speaks to the relevant circumstances preceding the occurrence. The deceased is stated to have sold about 13 acres of fertile land of the family out of the 30 acres owned to P.W. 1, and this was resented by the accused. P.W. I. states that the accused heat her on two or three occasions, and her husband, the deceased not being able to control the accused, she left for her father's house at Sadimugai, 12 miles from Kothamangalam. Proposals for the marriage of the two daughters had been made. The eldest daughter was to be married to her brother and the next one was to be married to P.W. 2. The deceased and his children were living at Karachikori near Kothamangalam about one mile from Chakkillan Thottam which had been sold to P.W. 1. There is evidence that the accused used to pester P.W. 1 even at her father's place, and a week before the occurrence he had stayed there for about 3 or 4 days worrying her for his share in the Chakkillan Thottam and desiring that he should be got married. P.W. 1 appears to have pacified him, promising to do the needful after the daughters were got married. P.W. 1 deposes that the accused left the place with threats of violence to her and her husband.
4. P.W. 2, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, speaks to his being with the accused and the deceased at
Chakkilianthottam on the night of the occurrence. He had gone to meet the deceased for settling the marriage, and, all the three went to the Thottam to sleep there. On the way, the accused demanded of his father (the deceased) his share. P.W. 2 states that the deceased said that he would give a share after the two daughters were : married and not before. The demand of the accused for a sum of Rs. 2,000 to start a tea and biscuit shop was also overruled by the deceased, who asked him to work on the land till the two daughters were married. All the three, the deceased, the accused and P.W. 2, went to bed at the Kalam in Chakkilian Thottam. There was an electric light burning. The deceased slept on a mat north of the place where the accused went to bed. about 6 feet from the accused. P.W. 2 slept on a cot about six feet to the south of the accused. At about 4 a.m. he heard a noise and waking up saw the accused cutting the deceased with an aruval at the place where the deceased was sleeping. He saw him deliver two cuts on the neck of the deceased. P.W. 2 depoes that, when questioned, the accused moved towards him with the aruval, and getting frightened he took up a stick, M.O. 1, and wielding it ran away to the Shalai in a field about 1 1/2, a furlongs away and woke up P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. At day break, P.W. 2 came to the scene of occurrence along with P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and found the deceased lying dead with injuries. The accused was not there. Immediately P.W. 2 met P.W. 5, another son of the deceased and informed him of what all happened. Then he gave information to the village munsif of Bagadathorai, P.W. 10. The first cousin of the deceased, P.W. 6, came to know of the occurrence from P.W. 5 at about 7 a.m. and he reported the occurrence to the village munsif of Kothamangalam (P.W. 7).
5. It is needless to refer to the further steps taken by the authorities in