Ajithkumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2012

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ajithkumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2012

This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C.No. 423 of 2010 challenging the judgment dated 11.9.2012 by which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default sentence for 2 year under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. According to the prosecution on 7.6.2007 at 10.30 pm the accused committed murder of his wife. She was murdered with a chopper in the dining hall of the house. The dead body was folded in a carpet and removed to the kitchen. Motive for the murder was suspicion on her chastity. He also tried to cause disappearance of the blood stains in the house. Her dead body was found by her brother on 8.6.2007 and the matter was reported to the police at 9.30 pm on the very same day. The accused was arrested and after completing investigation final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamangalam who committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Charge was framed for the Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -2- offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). The accused pleaded that he was not guilty. 16 witnesses were examined by prosecution and Exts.P1 to P18 were marked. MO1 to MO11 were identified and marked. After completing the procedure by examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C), defence examined DW1 to DW5 and marked Exts.D1 to D10(d). The matter was heard and the judgment pronounced as stated above.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary argument that the accused was suffering from insanity, but no steps were taken by the committal court to conduct an enquiry into such allegations and for that reason itself, the accused is liable to be discharged. It is submitted that when there is material to prove that the accused was a mentally unstable person, a committal court ought to conduct an enquiry in terms of Section 328 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that when there was enough material before the committal court to come to a conclusion that the accused was of unsound mind, Section 328 of the Cr.P.C is relevant. He also places reliance on the judgment of Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -3- a Division Bench of this court in State v. Baby (1981 KLT 27), Aji @ Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 29) and the Apex Court judgment in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010 (9) SCC 368). It is argued that, even otherwise when on medical evidence on record it is evident that he was under treatment for Paranoid Schizophrenia, he is entitled for the benefit under Section 84 of the IPC. He referred to the judgment in Saji v State of Kerala [2017 (3) KHC 262 (DB)] and the learned counsel also places reliance upon the fact that there is sufficient material to indicate that the accused was taken to hospital on several occasions by the jail authority.

4. Section 328 of the Cr.P.C reads as under:

"328. Procedure in case of accused being lunatic:- (1) When a Magistrate holding an inquiry has reason to believe that the person against whom the inquiry is being held is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness of mind, and shall cause such person to be examined by the civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer as the State Government may direct, and thereupon shall examine such surgeon or other officer as a witness and shall reduce the examination to writing. (1A) If the civil surgeon finds the accused to be of unsound mind, he shall refer such person to a psychiatrist or clinical Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -4- psychologist for care, treatment and prognosis of the condition and the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, as the case may be, shall inform the Magistrate whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental retardation:

Provided that if the accused is aggrieved by the information given by the psychiatric or clinical psychologist, as the case may be, to the Magistrate, he may prefer an appeal before the Medical Board which shall consist of

(a) head of psychiatry unit in the nearest government hospital; and

(b) a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest medical college;

(2) Pending such examination and inquiry, the Magistrate may deal with such person in accordance with the provisions of section 330.

(3) If such Magistrate is informed that the person referred to in sub-section (1A) is a person of unsound mind, the Magistrate shall further determine whether the unsoundness of mind renders the accused incapable of entering defence and if the accused is found so incapable, the Magistrate shall record a finding to that effect, and shall examine the record of evidence produced by the prosecution and after hearing the advocate of the accused but without questioning the accused, if he finds that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, he shall, instead of postponing the enquiry, discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under section 330:

Provided that if the Magistrate finds that a prima facie case is made out against the accused in respect of whom a Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -5- finding of unsoundness of mind is arrived at, he shall postpone the proceedings for such period, as in the opinion of the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, is required for the treatment of the accused, and order of the accused to be dealt with as provided under Section 330.

(4) If such Magistrate is informed that the person referred to in sub-section (1A) is a person with mental retardation, the Magistrate shall further determine whether the mental retardation renders the accused incapable of entering defence, and if the accused is found so incapable, the Magistrate shall order closure of the inquiry and deal with the accused in the manner provided under section 330."

5. Committal proceedings are to be dealt with under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C reads as under :

"209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it:- When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall

(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case of the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -6- documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session."

6. This court in Baby (supra) held that while committing the case by the Magistrate to a Court of Sessions, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the accused is mentally sound and is capable of making an acknowledgment. After referring to earlier judgment in Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala (1978 KLT

156), it was held that what is contemplated under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C is the committal of an accused who is of sound mind and capable of defending himself, and in cases where the Magistrate has reason to believe that an accused is a lunatic, he is expected to proceed under Section 328 (3) of the Cr.P.C and the proceedings should be postponed after recording a finding to that effect.

7. In Sajjan Kumar (supra), the Apex Court was considering the scope of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. At para 19 and 20 it was held as under.:

19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -7- presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-

examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

20. A Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 CrPC is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the other hand, if there is some evidence on which the conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. It is also clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

8. In Saji (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered the nature of evidence required to claim exemption under Section 84 of the IPC. It was held at para 22 - 24 as Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -8- under:

22. The scope of S.84 of the IPC has to be analysed and applied in the above background. Under S.84 of the IPC nothing is an offence, which is done by a person, who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. 'Unsoundness of mind' is not defined in the IPC, which, in the course of time, as interpreted by the law Courts, has been understood as something of insanity. What should be the grade of insanity has been discussed, explained and laid down, to extend the benefit under Section 84 of the IPC by the Apex Court, this Court and various other High Courts at different points of time.

23. 'Unsoundness of mind' means a state of mind where the accused is incapable of knowing the nature and consequence of his act or deeds or that he is incapable of knowing that he was doing something wrong or contrary to law. By virtue of settled position of law, the burden, of course, rests upon the person who raises the plea, i.e., the accused. So as to invoke the defence of insanity under S.84 of the IPC, it has to be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect or reason because of the disease of mind, as to the nature of his acts or its consequences or that what he was doing was wrong. Mere abnormality of mind or partial dilution does not afford any protection under S.84 IPC.

24. As a matter of fact, statutory rerecognition to the defence of insanity is brought about by virtue of S.84 of the IPC, which was developed by the Common Law of England in a decision of the House of Lords rendered in R. v. Daniel Mc Nauahten, 1843 RR 59 : 8 ER 718(HL). It was in the said case that the House of Lords had formulated the famous 'Mc Naughten Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -9- Rules' on the basis of five questions referred to them with regard to the defence of insanity. The reference was pursuant to the case where Mc Naughten was charged with murder for shooting the Private Secretary of the then Prime Minister of England (Sir Robert Peel). Medical evidence was produced by the accused - Mc Naughtern to show that at the time of committing the act, he was not in a sound state of mind. The plea of insanity was accepted and Mc Naughten was found not guilty, on the ground of insanity. The verdict became the subject - matter of debate in the House of Lords and opinion of all the Judges on the law governing such cases was decided to be taken. Section 84 of the IPC virtually came to be moulded in terms of the answers given to the questions put to the House of Lords [See Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on Indian Penal Code, 33rd Edition published by Lexis Nexis]

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that while in judicial custody, the jail authorities have taken the accused for treatment to the mental hospital which itself is an indication to prove that he was suffering from insanity. He also placed reliance upon a text on Mental Ill-Health and its Medico Legal Aspects in which there is a chapter on delusions which reads as under:

"Delusion A false or erroneous belief, in the face of contrary evidence, is held with conviction and is un-modifiable by appeals to reason or logic that would be acceptable to persons of the same religious or cultural background.

A delusion is always a sign of psychosis, since it Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -10- represents a defect in reality testing. It is merely an indication of deep seated mental disorder. Therefore, the person cannot be regarded as fully responsisble for anti- social acts.

Delusions may be of following types:

(i) Delusions of being controlled (influence).

(ii) Delusions of grandeur.

(iii) Delusions of persecution.

(iv) Delusions of reference or jealousy.

(v) Delusions of infidelity.

(vi) Delusions of hypochondriacal.

(vii) Delusions of nihilistic.

(viii) Delusions of self-reproach.

Delusion of grandeur and delusion of persecution are often seen together in the same person. For instance, a man who imagines himself to be very rich may also imagine that his enemies are conspiring to ruin him financially.

Delusions are very important from the medico-legal point of view, as they often affect the conduct and action of the sufferer, and may lead him to commit suicide, murder or some other crime. The judge and the lawyer attach great importance to the presence of delusions as the sign of mental ill-health. Hence, it is essential for a medical man to carefully make note of any delusions he has been able to elicit during the examination."

10. Similarly, reference has also been made to what is Paranoid Schizophrenia. A text of which has been relied upon is extracted as under :

"Paranoid Schizophrenia, Paranoia and Paraphrenia: Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -11-

Paranoia is now regarded as a mild form of paranoid schizophrenia. It occurs more in males than females. The main characteristic of the illness is a well-elaborated delusional system in a personality that is otherwise well preserved. The delusions are of a persecutory type. The true nature of all the illness may go unrecognised for a long time because the personality is well preserved, and some of these paranoiacs may pass of as social reformers or founders of queer pseudo-religious sects. The classical picture is rare and generally takes a chronic course.

Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but later change into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room, and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions."

11. It is also contended that the judgment in Baby (supra) has been approved by another Division Bench of this Court in Aji @ Ajith Kumar (supra), wherein the Division Bench after Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -12- considering various judgments and the judgment of the Apex Court in Vivian Rodrics v. State of West Bengal 1970 (1) SCC (Crl.) 33 held that, the committal proceedings established that though the learned Magistrate had called for a report from the Doctor on mental fitness of the appellant to stand for trial on the ground of unsoundness of mind, no enquiry as provided under Section 328(1) of the Cr.P.C was conducted. In so far as the learned Magistrate did not record his satisfaction that the appellant is fit to stand trial, after conducting enquiry under Section 328(1), the order of committal is bad and the sessions trial is also void. Learned counsel therefore sought for a proposition that the trial itself has become void and it has to wait till the accused become sane enough to stand trial.

12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor places reliance upon Tola Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1996 KHC 2635. This is a judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in which it was held that when a plea of insanity is raised under Section 84 of the IPC, it has to be proved that at the time of commission of offence, the accused was unaware of the nature of the act he was committing. The burden Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -13- of proof regarding the mental condition of the accused at the crucial point of time lies on the accused who claims the benefit of exemption. When no evidence is brought on record by the accused to prove that at the time of the commission of offence he was of unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of act and was not able to understand that his act is either wrong or contrary to law, the plea of unsoundness of mind is to be repelled.

13. Though we have gone through the records, we do not find any material to indicate that before the Magistrate any plea was raised regarding unsoundness of mind. When an accused is brought before the Magistrate an enquiry into the mental condition is required only if he has reason to believe that the person against whom the enquiry is being held is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, in which event a further enquiry into the facts of such unsoundness of mind is necessary. Therefore only if the Magistrate is satisfied or has reason to believe that the accused is of unsound mind that further proceedings is necessary, or the Magistrate should be informed about his unsoundness of mind as provided under sub Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -14- Section (3) of Section 328 of the Cr.P.C. In other words, the entire procedure prescribed under Section 328 of the Cr.P.C will come into operation only if the Magistrate has reason to believe that the person who is brought before the Magistrate is of unsound mind. The Apex Court in Dr. Jai Shankar (Lunatic) through Vijay Shankar brother guardian v State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1972 SC 2267), while construing section 328(1) of the Cr.P.C held that, the words "reason to believe" mean a belief which a reasonable person would entertain on the facts before him. Therefore, some materials should be made available before the Magistrate, or the Magistrate on seeing the accused should believe that he is a person of unsound mind.

14. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the crime was committed on 7.6.2007. The accused was arrested on 8.6.2007 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was granted bail. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet before the court was taken on file as C.P.No.13 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamangalam on 5.2.2010. What was the material available with the Magistrate as on 5.2.2010 to arrive at a conclusion that the accused was of Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -15- unsound mind is not borne out from the records. In the absence of any such material or if the Magistrate has no reason to believe that the accused was of unsound mind, the Magistrate having found that it is a case to be tired by the Court of Session had committed the case of the accused for trial.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant however argued based on an order dated 7.8.2007 of the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode in Crl.M.C.No. 726 of 2007 that there is a reference that the accused was treated for depression. The learned Sessions Judge found that, that the accused was under treatment for mental depression could not be a reason for granting bail. It is further observed that if the petitioner is having any sort of ailment that will be properly attended by the concerned authorities including Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. The Bail application was dismissed. This order would only show that a contention that he was under treatment for mental illness, was raised in the bail application which has no relevance to the facts of the case. Order dated 5.5.2010 in C.P.No. 13 of 2010 is the order of committal. From the proceedings of committal it could be seen that the accused appeared in C.P.No. 13 of 2010 Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -16- on 25.3.2010. He moved for bail and bail was granted. On 5.5.2010 he was again present. Counsel submitted having received all the relevant records. The case was thereafter committed to Session's Court and the accused thereafter appeared before the said Court. The accused was represented by a lawyer during committal proceedings. Therefore, we don't find any material being brought to the notice of the Magistrate, nor any material for the Magistrate to assume that the accused was of unsound mind at the relevant time when he was brought to the court to stand trial. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the committal proceedings were bad in law and is liable to be set aside as void. The principles laid down in Baby (supra) and Aji @ Ajith Kumar (supra) has no application to the facts of this case.

16. Now coming to the facts of the case, the prosecution had proved the case mainly based on the evidence of PW2, son of the deceased. At the relevant time when the incident happened he was studying in the 7th standard. Before court his capacity to give evidence was examined and he was found to be a competent witness. He deposed that on the alleged day he heard his mother Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -17- crying from the dining room and when he reached the dining room, he saw the accused cutting the neck of his mother with a chopper. He returned to the bed and remained there due to fear. Next day morning he heard his father's brother Sajith scolding his father. He was taken to mother's sister house at 8 am. By evening he was taken to his father's brother's house for participation in funeral. Police came after 2-3 days. He was not in a position to disclose what had happened. After two months police again came and took his statement. He also identified the chopper, marked as MO1 and the dress of his mother as MO2.

17. PW4 is the uncle of the accused. He deposed that on 8.6.2007, he heard a loud cry of a lady by about 10 in the night. When he looked out he could not see any light and doors were closed. There was light inside house. He also deposed that when body of victim was taken from house, the accused was brought out from house and he was made to sit in the verandah. PW5 is a neighbour of the accused. On 8.6.2007 when he came to house of accused he found brothers of accused Sajithkumar and Sreekumar looking through the window. At that time he was standing in his courtyard. He deposed that by looking through Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -18- the kitchen window he saw Geetha lying dead and the accused was sitting in a chair. All the doors of the house were found closed. The brothers of the accused called the accused and he came through the kitchen door stating that he has a found remedy for all the matters.

18. PW11 conducted postmortem. After examination of the body of Geetha he issued Ext.P11 certificate. He found 27 ante mortem injuries and according to him injuries 1,2, 3, 26 and 27 were grievous. He opined the she died due to the combined effect of blunt injuries to head and neck and cut injury to face. He also deposed that the said injuries could be caused by MO1 weapon. Injuries 1,2, 3, 26 and 27 are as under:

"1. Incised wound 4.5x0.8 cm bone deep, over chin, oblique, lower left end 4 cm below lip margin and 0.5 cm to the left of midline. Both ends were sharp.

2. Incised wound 4x1 cm bone deep over right side of face, upper edge merging with injury No.1 and lower right end 3.5 cm in front of neck and 4 cm to the right of midline. Beneath this injury the bone, mandible with a cut fracture 3.5 0.5 cm entire thickness 2.5 cm to the right of midline.

3. Incised wound 5.5x1.5 cm muscle deep over under aspect of chin, 2.5 cm in front of neck, transversely placed.

26. Extensive infiltration of muscles and tissues around neck with blood 28x5 to 8 cm circumferential length. Hyoid Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -19- bone an thyroid cartilage were normal and intact.

27. Scalp contusion 28x10 cm over occipital and both parietal bones of head. Subdural bleeding diffuse all over the temporal, parietal and occipital lobes of brain.

19. The accused apparently does not dispute the commission of the crime, whereas according to the defence, at the time when the incident occurred he was suffering from insanity. Five witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW5. DW1 is the Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Ext.D5 is the case sheet relating to treatment given to Ajith Kumar and Ext.D6 is the OP ticket issued in his name. He joined Medical College only on 7.9.2007. DW2 is the Professor of Psychiatric Department. He had examined the accused and Ext.D5 is the record showing the treatment given to him. His opinion is that he has suspicion and apprehends that someone may kill him and people are speaking ill of him. His opinion is that accused is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. According to his finding the accused has persecutory and referential delusion and auditory hallucinations. He was under lock and key for one month from 6.7.2007 and was in continuous medication until now. He also gave evidence stating that the mental illness Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -20- would have started six months earlier to July, 2007 and if medication is not given, he will turn violent and may do brutal acts. He also proved Ext.D6, OP ticket, Ext.D7, OP medical record book, Ext.D8 series of OP tickets. DW3 is the brother of accused and he deposed that accused was suffering from mental illness. He however admitted that on the previous day of the incident, he saw the accused along with his wife and children travelling in a motor bike during night to the hospital where his father was admitted. He also stated that when he went to the house of accused after the incident he found the accused sitting near the dining table and dead body of Geetha was in the room. His elder brother came and they requested the accused to open the door. His elder brother had shown the knife to the police which the police had taken custody.

20. DW4 is a family friend of the accused. According to him, the accused was having an irritating behaviour. DW5 is the Superintendent District Jail, Kozhikode. Ext.D10 is the medical journal with respect to the male prisoners in jail. He deposed that accused while undergoing remand obtained treatment which is evident from Ext.D10 (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -21-

21. As already stated, the materials placed on record clearly proves the complicity of the accused with the crime and presently the defence raised is based on exception under Section 84 of IPC. It is settled law that when the plea of insanity under Section 84 of IPC is taken as defence, the burden of proving the existence of such circumstances lies on the accused. Until the existence of such circumstances is proved the court will have to presume absence of such circumstances. The evidence that has come in is in the form of oral testimony of DW3 and Ext.D6 to D10 medical records. As evident from Exts.D4 to D10, there is no material available to prove that the accused was suffering or undergoing any treatment for unsoundness of mind prior to 7.6.2007. Though DW2 stated that the accused was suffering from mental illness 6 months prior to the date of incident, there is no basis for the said finding. He has not treated the accused during the said period.

22. Further, the court below also finds that DW2 is a Doctor who was practicing near to the house of the accused for last 33 years and their acquaintance and close residence tends the court not to have complete faith in his testimony or rather, the Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -22- testimony of DW2 is not inspiring confidence. Further, it could be seen that the murder was committed within the house. There was no quarrel and none of the neighbours had heard anything of the sort. Accused had closed all the doors of the house. He took a chopper and had inflicted several injuries on his wife. The court below had also taken note of the fact that when a crime is committed after closing doors, he was very clear of the fact what he was intending to do. He did not commit any crime against his children. He had animosity against his wife on account of his suspicion about her alleged association with another person. So it was a deliberate act of murder and not the act of a person suffering from insanity. He sat there till morning when people around came. He even told that he had taken care of everything. He was very calm when his brothers came.

23. In other words, he did not show any abnormal behaviour at any point of time. Probably after the incident he would have suffered some depression or delusion. But as held in Saji (supra), the unsoundness of mind should be a state of mind, where accused is incapable of knowing the nature and consequence of his act or deeds or that he is incapable of Crl.A. No. 1358 of 2012 -23- knowing what he was doing, knowing that what he was doing is wrong or contrary to law. It was also held that in order to invoke the defence of insanity under Section 84 of IPC, it has to be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect because of the disease of mind. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion does not afford any protection under Section 84 of IPC.

24. Despite the strenuous arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not think that the case of insanity has been made out in order to give the benefit of Section 84 of IPC to the accused. It was cold blooded murder which does not require any sympathy. No grounds have been made out for interference.

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE kp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court