Karnataka High Court
Sannatamma vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ2257, ILR2004KAR2286, 2004(5)KARLJ496, 2004 CRI. L. J. 2257, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1371, (2004) ILR (KANT) (2) 2286, (2004) 5 KANT LJ 496, (2004) 3 RECCRIR 624, (2004) 2 KCCR 1016, (2004) 3 ALLCRILR 630
Author: S.R. Bannurmath
Bench: S.R. Bannurmath
JUDGMENT S.R. Bannurmath, J.
1. The accused/appellant who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for committing the matricide and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
The accused - Sannatamma, his brother - P.W.1 Parameshwar and P.W.4 - Ravi Kiran were the children of the deceased - Laxmi. All were residents of Achave village of Borolli village in Ankola Taluk. According to the prosecution as there was incompatibility between the wife of the accused and the deceased-mother-in-law, accused was staying separate with his family members in the same village whereas the deceased P.W.1, 4 and their other family members were staying in one house. According to the prosecution some landed properties were in the name of the deceased and the accused was pestering to transfer the lands in his name. The deceased was reluctant to do so and it is alleged that she had rebuked the accused stating that as long as she would be alive, her properties would not be transferred to anybody. This denial or refusal on the part of the mother alleged to be the cause and motive for the crime in the incident in question.
3. According to the prosecution in the morning of 16.9.2000 while P. W. 1 and his neighbours - P.Ws.2 and 3 were sitting in front of the house and on arrival of the accused when the deceased Laxmi was about to serve him with a tea, suddenly he picked up a sickle lying nearby and gave a fatal blow on the neck of the deceased resulting in her instantaneous death. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 immediately caught hold of the accused, tied him to a tree nearby and thereafter with the assistance of P.W.5 another neighbour informed the jurisdictional Police at Ankola Police Station. P.W.12 Shivanand -- the Head Constable and S.H.O. on duty on receipt of the information immediately went to the spot, learnt about the incident from P.W.1 and others and recorded the statement of P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1. Along with Ex.P.1 and the accused, he returned back to the Police Station and then entrusted the matter to the A.S.I. -- P.W.11. P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No. 167/ 00 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, against accused and arranged to send the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate as well as Superior Officer. Thereafter the investigation was taken up by Dayanand - P.W.13 - the Police Inspector who drew necessary mahazars, seizure of certain materials including M.Os. 2 to 4 from the spot, recorded the statements of witnesses and arranged for body being subjected to autopsy. After completion of the investigation on receipt of all the necessary report, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. On committal and after charges being framed, as the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, he was tried in Sessions Case No. 3/2001.
4. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of 13 witnesses as well as Exs. P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 6 to bring home the charge against the accused. Though the accused while being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., answering the incriminating circumstances has denied the prosecution case but has filed a written statement which is as follows:-
5. Along with this written statement, he has also produced hospital card issued by the Karnataka Institute of Mental Health, Dharwad, as well as letter addressed to the relatives of the accused by the Medical Officer of the Karnataka Institute of Mental Health, Dharwad, dated 21.3.1997. On perusal of the written statement as well as the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the accused has taken a plea of insanity. The Trial Court on perusal of the entire evidence declining to accept the plea of insanity, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. And sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal.
6. As the accused is an indigent person and had filed this appeal through jail, this Court had requested Sri Anees Alikhan, learned Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae taking us through the entire evidence contended that as is clear from the defence taken by the accused at the earliest opportunity as well as the answers elicited from cross-examination of prosecution witnesses themselves, there was enough material before the Court to hold that the accused was insane when at the time when he is alleged to have committed the murder of his mother-Laxmi. As such as per Section 84 IPC., this was an act of a person of unsound mind even though heinous, does not amount to any offence committed by the accused.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor argued in support of the prosecution interalia contending that there is absolutely no material to indicate that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was insane. He contended that mere insanity on the part of the accused prior or after commission of the offence will not automatically entitle him to the benefit under Section 84 IPC. It is also contended that the burden of proof was on the accused to show that the murder committed by him of his mother was during the bout of insanity. On these among other grounds it is contended that as rightly found by the Trial Court, the accused has failed to discharge his burden of proving insanity and hence conviction of the accused by the Trial Court is just and proper.
9. We have considered the evidence in detail as well as the arguments on both sides.
10. On going through the entire evidence especially the evidence of P.Ws.1, who is not only the son of the deceased but also the younger brother of the accused, who is an eye witness as well as evidence of two independent witnesses in the form of P.Ws.2 and 3 who were neighbours and had come to the house of the deceased and P.W. 1 to take tea, clearly and cogently establish the fact that on 16.9.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. in the presence of these persons, the accused assaulted the deceased with sickle resulting in her death. The death of Laxmi being homicidal in nature is also not much in dispute. In view of the cogent and consistent evidence of the prosecution as well as admission on the part of the accused in this regard, it leaves no doubt in our mind that it was the accused and accused alone who killed his mother - Laxmi on the date and time mentioned by assaulting her with sickle, but the main question for our consideration is whether it is homicidal death amounting to murder or the act of the accused falls under the exception of Section 84 IPC?
11. Under our criminal jurisprudence every man is presumed to be sane and possess sufficient degree of reasoning, to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. As a criminal intent is an indispensable element in every crime, a person incapable of entertaining such intent cannot incur legal guilt. This proposition has number of exception as provided under Chapter-IV of IPC. One of such exception can be seen under Section 84 which is to the effect that nothing is offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it by reason of insanity of mind, is capable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The Courts have considered the provisions of Section 84 IPC., as being an exception and hence the burden of proof that the case of the accused falls under any of this exception is upon the accused himself. This law has been considered in detail by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DAHYABHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT, the Apex Court has observed thus:-
"It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception lies on the accused; and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in Section 4 thereof, the Court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the Court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a, prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the material placed before the Court, such as oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfied the test of "prudent man", the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in Section 299 of the Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions; (1) the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea: and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence - oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The plea of insanity and its consequences were long back considered by the House of Lords in the case of DANIEL MAC NOUGHTONS, (1843) 10 C&F 200 and certain guidelines came to be issued to the Juries for considering the plea of insanity, which in our view still hold good. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case have observed thus:-
"Insanity affects not only the cognitive faculties of the mind which guide our actions, but also our emotions which prompt our actions and the will by which our actings are performed. And they say that: our actions and the will by which our actions which our acting are that 'it is only unsoundness of mind which materially imparts the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from the criminal responsibility'."
13. Undoubtedly it is true the legal conception of insanity is different from the medical conception. In the former case it has to be further proved that the insanity is of such a degree that because of it, the man is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. In the case of GOKULDAS GAONKAR v. STATE, 1995 (3) CCR 189 the Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Bombay have observed thus:-
"When previous insanity of accused is proved and admitted, the presumption of sanity at the time of commission of the offence would be definitely weakened to certain extent. Therefore, if the High Court feels that accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts at the time of committing the crime and therefore his case is covered by the general exception of Section 84 IPC., it has to give the benefit to the accused."
Keeping in view these principles, we have considered the materials on records.
14. Apart from the plea of the accused as seen in the written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is enough indication as to the accused being mentally unsound or suffering from some mental disease right from the year 1997. Though we do not have sufficient and detail material as to the kind of mental illness, the fact remains that for number of months the accused was admitted and treated at the mental hospital at Dharwad. In this regard we have also looked into the records of Committal Court and the Sessions Court. It is seen from the records of the Committal Court itself that immediately after the production of the accused by the Investigating Agency, as the learned Magistrate felt that the accused showed mental imbalance, he was referred for treatment to the Mental Hospital at Dharwad and this treatment continued till the session trial began also. Infact after committal of the case and framing of the charge, the learned Sessions Judge also noticed this aspect and has referred the accused once again back to the mental hospital. Apart from this material we have un-clinching evidence of P.W.1 - the brother of the accused and P.W.2 in this regard. The consistent version of all the prosecution witnesses who have seen the incident is that in the morning when all the witnesses were sitting in front of the house, the accused came, sat and while the deceased mother was serving him tea, suddenly picked up sickle lying nearby and gave a blow on the neck of the deceased. There is absolutely no material to indicate that the accused with any premeditated notion, preparation, came to the house of the deceased and killed her with some motive. Infact P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has admitted to the fact that the accused was under treatment in the Mental Hospital at Dharwad for some time prior to the incident and probably so also was in the disturbed mind because of death of one of his child. More beneficial evidence is that of P.W.2 - a neighbour and eye witness to the incident. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused had no quarrel with the deceased and was often visiting the house and coming to the incident it is stated that the accused picked up the sickle suddenly and assaulted his mother. This witness has infact expressed his surprise for the conduct of the accused by admitting "It is true that conduct of the accused appear very strange to me".
15. The act of the accused coming to the house of the deceased mother without any preparation for the crime including not bringing any weapon, sitting quietly along with P.W.1 and others and while the deceased was serving him tea, suddenly picking up a sickle lying nearby and giving a blow coupled with the fact of his mental disturbance earlier and during trial, as evidenced from the record indicates to us that this was not an act a sane person out of any malice or illwill towards the deceased. No doubt the prosecution has tried to putforth the motive on the part of the accused namely deceased refusing to give him share in the property but we do not find enough material in this regard even to draw such assumption in respect of the motive. On careful scrutiny and giving our anxious thoughts over the entire material, we feel that the act of the accused - assaulting his mother was for no reason and all of a sudden and as such was only an act of insane person and as such he deserves the benefit of exception under Section 84 IPC.
16. It is to be noted here itself that even though right from the stage of committal and even during trial, the Trial Court had noticed this condition of the accused but still came to the wrong conclusion. On perusal of the entire record, we see that the Trial Judge has also failed to take steps in pursuance of Section 329 Cr.P.C. and has proceeded to reject the plea of the accused of insanity and finding him guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Though the learned Sessions Judge has tried to make out that the conduct of the accused was not that of an innocent person and hence he is not entitled to benefit of doubt. On consideration of the entire material before us and after re-appreciating the entire evidence, we find that the Trial Court had committed an error in not extending the benefit to the accused. As observed by the Apex Court in DAHYABAI's case "it is the duty of the Court to take into account all the material available to find out whether the accused is entitled for the benefit under Section 84 IPC". Hence, we find that there is apparent illegality resulting in unjust conviction of the appellant.
17. For the reasons stated above we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 7th July 2001, passed by the Sessions Court, Uttar Kannada Sessions Division, Karwar, in S.C. 3/2001 and giving benefit under Section 84 IPC., acquit the accused of all the charges leveled against him.
18. Though we have acquitted the accused, the duty of the Court does not come to an end in the light of the provisions of Section 335 Cr.P.C. As such exercising the jurisdiction under Section 335 Cr.P.C., we direct the Jail Authorities to transfer the accused to the Mental Hospital at Dharwad for keeping the appellant under observation and treatment. It is for the Mental Hospital Authorities to decide the person as to whether or not he qualifies for being retained in the Institution or if after observation or at some future point of time a stage is reached when the doctors are of the view that the accused is perfectly well and safe, both to himself and to the Society, in that event, it shall be open to them to discharge the accused after due intimation to the relatives of the appellant and also the Trial Court which has to apply its independent mind to the facts and circumstances.
Before closing we place on record our word of appreciation to the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Anees Alikhan and as a token of our appreciation, direct the Office to pay an honourarium of Rs. 3,000/-to him.