Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1809
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Vellapandi - Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station, Tuticorin - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No. 353 of 2017 & Crl. MP(MD)No. 8170 of 2017
Decided On : 24-09-2019
For the Appellant :KA. Ramakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374 – Indian Penal Code - Section 341/ 302 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 105 – Offence of murder - Simple Imprisonment – Injury - They saw the deceased Arumugam alias Ganapathi coming in a cycle from west to east at Srivaikundam – Eral Road, the accused was coming in the opposite direction with an iron pipe (M.O.1) and he restrained the deceased Arumugam alias Ganapathi and abused him in filthy language and attacked him with iron pipe on his head repeatedly. When the witnesses attempted to stop him, he threatened them saying that they will also be attacked and killed, if they interfered. They found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and he had died – Held, Test of severity envisaged herein predicates that the offender needs to have a severe mental illness or disability, which simply means that objectively the illness needs to be most serious that the Accused cannot understand or comprehend the nature and purpose behind the imposition of such punishment -It is clear from the above Judgment that the accused has to demonstrate that the severe mental disability incapacitated him from understanding the nature of the act that was committed by him at the time of incident. This disability will have to be assessed by a Multi Disciplinary Team of qualified professionals and their report can be taken into consideration - In the present case, we are of the considered view that there are absolutely no materials to show that the appellant suffered from mental disorder at the time of the incident and the appellant has not discharged the burden as required under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the defence of the appellant regarding unsoundness of mind - In line with the above discussion, we note that there appear to be no set disorders/disabilities for evaluating the severe mental illness, however a test of severity can be a guiding factor for recognizing those mental illness which qualify for an exemption. Therefore, the test envisaged herein predicates that the offender needs to have a severe mental illness or disability, which simply means that a medical professional would objectively consider the illness to be most serious so that he cannot understand or comprehend the nature and purpose behind the imposition of such punishment. These disorders generally include schizophrenia, other serious psychotic disorders, and dissociative disorders-with schizophrenia - A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individuals cognition, emotion Regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above – petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment rendered in S.C.No.54 of 2015, by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, dated 20.10.2016.)
1. The sole accused, aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.54 of 2015, dated 20.10.2016, has filed the present appeal before this Court.
2. By virtue of the said Judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
| S. No. | Offence for which convicted | Sentence of Imprisonment | Fine Amount |
| 1. | Section 341 IPC | Two Weeks Simple Imprisonment | - |
| 2. | 506(ii) IPC | 3 Months S.I. | - |
| 3. | 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.1000/-, and in default. to undergo 3 months S.I. |
The case of the prosecution:
3. On 29.09.2013, when P.W.1, her daughter Petchi and P.W.2 were standing and talking in front of the house of P.W.1 at about 2.00 p.m., the accused told P.W.1 that whenever he asked his father to get him married, the husband of P.W.1 is unnecessarily interfering with the same and therefore only if he is done away with, he can get married. Subsequently, on 01.10.2013, at about 7.30 p.m., when P.W. 1, one Samudram, P.W.2 and one Kalimuthu were talking near the house of Luca (P.W.3). They saw the deceased Arumugam alias Ganapathi coming in a cycle from west to east at Srivaikundam – Eral Road, the accused was coming in the opposite direction with an iron pipe (M.O.1) and he restrained the deceased Arumugam alias Ganapathi and abused him in filthy language and attacked him with iron pipe on his head repeatedly. When the witnesses attempted to stop him, he threatened them saying that they will also be attacked and killed, if they interfered. They found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and he had died.
4. The compliant and the materials collected in the Course of Investigation:-
4.1 P.W.9, who is the Special Sub Inspector of Srivaikundam Police Station, was on bandobust duty and he received an information regarding the incident and went to the scene of occurrence and collected the information from P.W.1 between 08.15 to 8.30 p.m., and reduced it to writing and got her thumb imprison (Ex.P1). The complaint was attested by P.W.2. He brought the complaint to the Police Station and at about 10.00 p.m., he registered an FIR (Ex.P.12) in Crime No.286 of 2013, for an offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. The express FIR was handed over to the Head Constable (P.W.7). He handed over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, on 02.10.2013, at about 3.30 a.m.
4.2 The Inspector of Police (P.W.13) took over investigation and went to the scene of crime at about 11.15 p.m., on 01.10.2013 and in the presence of witnesses, (P.W.4) he inspected the place and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and the rough sketch (Ex.P15). He conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased at about 12.15 a.m., in the presence of witness and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P16). He collected the material objects in the scene of crime (M.Os.2, 3 and 4) and seized it under (Ex.P3). He handed over the dead body to the Head Constable (P.W.8) with a requisition to conduct postmortem and to thereafter handover the body to the relatives.
4.3 The Investigating Officer proceeded to record the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. He got the information regarding the accused person and he proceeded to arrest the accused on 02.10.2013, at about 7.00 a.m., in the presence of witnesses (P.W.5). Based on the confession, he recovered the material objects (M.O.1, M.O.5 and M.O.6). The material objects were sent to the Court under Form 95. He also submitted the requisition to the Court (Ex.P6) to send the seized objects for chemical analysis. Thereafter, he handed ove
