Madras High Court
Sasi Kumar vs The State Represented By on 9 March, 2007
Bench: M.Chockalingam, G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.03.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.163 OF 2005 Sasi Kumar .. Appellant Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondent This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 01.04.2004 passed in S.C.No.12 of 2002, on the file of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. !For Appellant : Mr.T.Arul for Mr.M.Sunil Kumar ^For Respondent : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was made by G.RAJASURIA, J.) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.12 of 2002, dated 01.04.2004, wherein and whereby for the double murder of the wife and son of the appellant/accused, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each counts and to pay a fine Rs.50,000/- for the first count and Rs.25,000/- for the second count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and two years respectively, the appellant/sole accused preferred this appeal.
2. Broadly, but briefly, narratively but pithily, the case of the prosecution could be portrayed thus:
(i) The appellant/accused Sasikumar is the husband of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the father of the deceased child Venkatesh aged 10 months.
The appellant/accused several times visited foreign country in connection with his job and he was employed there also for considerable time. During the wedlock between the appellant and Vijayalakshmi, they were blessed with two children, i.e., one female child aged 6 years and one other male child the deceased Venkatesh. The appellant/accused suspected the fidelity of his wife including the parentage of the deceased Venkatesh. It so happened that on 12th September, 2000 at about 03.00 p.m., at the appellant's house door bearing No.6/93-63-B, there broke out a quarrel between the appellant and his wife Vijayalakshmi which fact was noticed by P.W.1 and P.W.2, the parents of the first deceased Vijayalakshmi who were at that time approaching the said house to meet them. On seeing P.W.1 and P.W.2 coming near the house, the appellant/accused closed the front and back doors of his house and dragged Vijayalakshmi to the bed room and pushed her on the bed and dealt blows with M.O.1 Vettukathi and killed her in addition to smothering the child who died due to asphyxia. Through the windows only, P.W.1 and P.W.2 could witness the occurrence.
(ii) After the occurrence, the appellant opened the door and ran out of the house with the Vettukathi M.O.1. Thereupon, P.W.1, the father of the first deceased Vijayalakshmi lodged the complaint Ex.P.1 with the Special Sub Inspector Police at Karungal Police Station who registered a case in Cr.No.723 of 2000 under Section 302 (2 counts) I.P.C as evidenced by Ex.P.20 the printed form of F.I.R. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police of Karungal Police Station visited the scene of crime, prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.4 and one Regu, together with Ex.P.21, the rough sketch. He also recovered the blood stained mossaic pieces M.O.2, un-bloodstained mossaic pieces M.O.3, blood stained plank M.O.4, bloodstained lungi M.O.5 and blood stained wooden piece M.O.6 in the presence of the same witnesses under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.3.
(iii) The police conducted inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem.
(iv) P.W.6, Dr.Kishorkumar Jacob, who conducted autopsy on those dead bodies issued Ex.P.7 the post-mortem certificate concerning Vijayalakshmi and P.8 the post-mortem certificate relating to Venkatesh. On 13.09.2000 at about 20.00 hours, the police arrested the accused and recovered M.O.1,Vettukathi, the weapon of offence under cover of mahazar Ex.P.5 pursuant to Ex.P.4, the admissible portion of the confessional statement of the accused. The police caused the material objects to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through the Magistrate Court for obtaining experts opinion and accordingly, Exs.P.13 Chemical Examiner's report, P.14 Serologist's report, Exs.P.10 and P.17 experts' reports were received by the Court.
(v) After completing the investigation, the police laid the final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate concerned who committed the case to the Court of Session which framed the charges as against the accused for the murder of his wife Vijayalakshmi and his minor son Venkatesh.
(vi) During trial, by way of unfolding the prosecution case, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked along with M.Os.1 to 18.
(vii) The process of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C witnessed the incriminating circumstances available on record having been put to the accused and his reply in the negative. He pleaded ignorance and expressed his desire to see his 9 years old daughter.
(viii) On the side of the defence, D.W.1, Dr.B.Nagarajan was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked, with the fond hope of pressing into service the defence of insanity and thereby invoking Section 84 I.P.C. The trial Court ultimately found the accused guilty of the double murder and accordingly, passed the sentences as set out supra negativing the plea of insanity.
3. Impugning and questioning the justifiability of the convictions and sentences, the appellant/accused preferred this appeal on the grounds inter alia thus:
Both the appellant and the deceased Vijayalakshmi were out of their compos mentis and the occurrence did not take place in the manner narrated by the prosecution. The motive to the commission of the crime was not proved at all. The contradictions among the depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were not considered. The evidence of D.W.1 was not considered in proper perspective. Accordingly, the appellant/accused prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and for acquitting him.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would canvass the plea of insanity on the part of the accused and thereby try to attract Section 84 I.P.C for which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose the attempt to usher in Section 84 I.P.C in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Heard both sides in entirety.
6. The Points for determination are:
(i) Whether the motive to the commission of the crime was not proved?
(ii) Whether the evidence on the prosecution side points towards the actual commission of double murder by the accused and if so, whether Section 84 I.P.C could be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the accused?
(iii) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court?
7. Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven with each other.
Point Nos:(i) and (ii)
8. The ocular evidence as put forth by the prosecution through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the parents of the first deceased Vijayalakshmi withstood the test of cross-examination. Trait, the proposition of law is, that simply because P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the near relatives of both the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. In support of this view, the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Caes 614 could fruitfully be referred to.
9. P.W.1 and P.W.2 being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the appellant, had no antipathy or abomination, aversion or abhorrence, detest or dislike, recalcitrance or odium as against their own son-in-law, the appellant herein, leaving the real culprits.
10. During cross examination, P.W.1 would categorically and clearly express and expatiate that the accused for about ten months was staying in a foreign country and returned to India only ten days anterior to the occurrence and that three times, he on earlier occasions, visited the foreign countries in connection with his job. In fact, P.W.1 would expound that after the appellant/accused returned from foreign country on an earlier occasion, when he visited to his house, he could not meet him and that therefore, on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had chosen to visit his house and at that time alone, they had the opportunity of witnessing such a ghastly and blood-curdling, horrendous and macabre crime perpetrated by the accused on the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the child Venkatesh. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 in unison would detail and delineate, describe and portray the actual commission of the offence by the accused and absolutely, there is nothing to doubt their testimony.
11. In fact, this Court need not dilate further on the very perpetration of the crime by the accused as he himself has openly come forward with the plea of insanity so as to invoke Section 84 I.P.C contending that D.W.1 Doctor, gave treatment to the deceased Vijayalakshmi as revealed by Ex.D.1 certificate dated 17.06.2001 which emerged long after the occurrence in this case, the accused would try to find support to his unconvincing and farfetched plea. D.W.1 the Doctor's exposition of the mental status of the deceased Vijayalakshmi as though she was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia Disorder, in this factual matrix could only be evaluated and assessed as an attempt to let loose red herrings.
12. At this juncture, this Court would like to highlight that it is not the case of the accused that the deceased died a suicidal death, but her death was a homicidal one. The minor boy Venkatesh was also subjected to homicidal injuries and as a sequelae, he succumbed to those injuries.
13. D.W.1 would depose as though he gave treatment to both the accused as well as the deceased Vijayalakshmi on several occasions. Ex.D.2 to D.5 are not authentic prescriptions. Ex.D.6 the private register, which lacks clarity and authenticity to prove about the inpatient treatment given to both the accused and the deceased Vijayalakshmi, has been produced only for being rejected as in a serious murder case, such sort of dubious documents should be refrained from being produced. During arguments, nothing could be drawn to our attention from Ex.D.6 the register as to whether any mental treatment was given to the appellant as inpatient. In Ex.D.6, register, it is found recorded as though long after the occurrence, the appellant was admitted as an inpatient on 21.04.2001 and discharged on 06.05.2001. A mere perusal of Ex.D.6 register would speak by itself as to its unreliability.
14. The learned Counsel for the appellant in all fairness has submitted that there is nothing to show that anterior to the occurrence, the accused was taking any treatment. In response to the query raised by this Court as to whether there is any positive evidence highlighting that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was suffering from any mental disorder, of such a type which made him incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing contrary to law, for which we could not get any plausible answer from the appellant's side.
15. Indisputably and indubitably, the onus of proof is on the accused to prove his plea of unsoundness of mind and should establish as to how Section 84 I.P.C is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, mere preponderance of probabilities concerning the defence of the accused would be sufficient. But, absolutely there is no plausible evidence much less any probable evidence to usher in the applicability of Section 84 I.P.C.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellant cited the decision in Ratan Lal v. State of M.P reported in 1971 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 139 which would posit the proposition that unsoundness of mind should be established to the effect that at the time of committing of actual commission of offence, the accused was suffering from such unsoundness of mind. The learned Counsel for the appellant further cited the decision in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 748 which would highlight and spot light the point that the preponderance of probabilities of the defence theory would be sufficient. Certain excerpts from the said decision would run thus:
"10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment? 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 afterwards 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, telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from persecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.)
11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting the behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself and to others. .......
16. In support of the contention that the crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 I.P.C is the time when the offence is committed, the learned Counsel relied upon the following passage from the aforenoticed case:(SCR p.370) "When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, 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. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime."
17. Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception.
18. We have already noticed earlier that unsoundness of mind preceding the occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. It has rightly not been questioned by learned Counsel for the State. Regarding the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence, in our opinion, ordinarily that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances. Further, as earlier noticed, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings.
19. The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these:
1. The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering from psychiatric illness.
2. Cause of ailment not known - heredity plays a part.
3. The appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 - diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia
4. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27-6-1994 to 5-12- 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of the ailment 25 times to hospital.
5. The appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.
6. The weak motive of killing of the wife - being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a police constable.
7. Killing in daylight - no attempt to hide or run away."
17. In fact, both the aforesaid decisions are not in favour of the appellant, but against his plea. The cited decisions highlight the ingredients of Section 84 I.P.C and the mode of proving the plea of unsoundness of mind. In the light of the above, it is just and necessary to further analyse the evidence available on record so as to find out the conduct of the appellant before and after the commission of the crime in addition to analysing his conduct at the time of perpetrating the crime.
18. This Court at this stage could lay down a broad guideline for the applicability of Section 84 I.P.C to the effect that the conduct of the accused before, at and after the perpetration of the crime should be the sole test whether to apply or not to apply Section 84 I.P.C. The popular adage is that "even a devil cannot understand the mind of a person" and in such a case, from the overt acts and the over all conducts alone, the mind of the accused at the time of perpetration of the crime could be understood. P.W.1 to P.W.3, the witnesses who spoke about the occurrence as eyewitnesses and the deposition of P.W.6, the picturesque who conducted the post-mortem on both the dead bodies and the evidence of D.W.1, Doctor B.Nagarajan who was examined on the side of the defence, have to be scrutinised further in depth.
19. At the first instance, we would like to scrutinise and analyse the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused at the time of perpetrating the crime. As has been already discussed supra, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 without leaving any shadow of doubt in the mind of the Court, gave a picturized description about the commission of the crime by the accused. P.W.3 who was living in the house situated to the backside of the house of the accused, would exemplify in his deposition that on hearing the sound at the time of commission of offence, he rushed to the house of the accused from his house; that he saw P.W.1 and P.W.2 standing outside the house and shouted in agony while they were peering through the window of that house; that P.W.3 also joined with them in witnessing the crime through that window. He also withstood the cross-
examination and he had no axe to grind in the matter. It is therefore crystal clear that it was the accused who committed the crime.
20. In this context, the medical evidence should be scrutinised so as to find out the nature of those injuries. In Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, the anti-mortem injuries noticed by the Doctor are found described and elucidated as under:
"1. Incised wound at lower half of outside of neck, 1 . cm above sternum horizontal - 10 cm X 3 cm X 4 . cm deep - to the level of 7th cervical ventilua
- on exploring the edge, bare are black, blood clot present, blood - trachea & oesophagus seen, thyroid gland, trachea, oesophagus, the vessels, muscles of nerves are cut.
2. Incised wound, oblique over left side forehead extending from lower end of left ear lobe 12 cm X 1 . cm X . cm - alone seen over forehead, the edge & base has blood clot & black in colour
3. Incised oblique wound 5 cm X 1 . cm X . cm deep at back of left side head, the lower end is 3 cm behind left ear, bone explored, the edge & bare blood stained.
4. Incised wound at web space between right & middle fingers extending down for 7 cm, cutting the muscles & tender the wound blood stained.
5. Incised wound back of right hand below index fingers 4 cm X . cm X cm oblique - blood staining.
6.Incised wound 4 cm X 1 cm extending down from web space between life index & middle fingers cutting the muscles & tender the wound is blood stained. All are anti-mortum in nature.
7.Incised wound right elbow joint separating the forearm from body the wound is pale.
8. Incised wound left elbow joint separating the forearm from body the wound is pale.
9.Incised wound right knee joint, the leg is attached to thigh by the skin at back of knee joint - pale wound.
10.Incised wound left knee joint the leg is attached to thigh by the skin at the back of knee joint - pale wound.
11. Incised vertical wound at middle of vagina 9 cm X 3 cm X 1 . cm exposing the pelvis bone - the wound is pale.
Wound 7 - 11 are post-mortem in nature." [emphasis supplied]
21. The pertinent point which we would like to spot light here is the eleventh injury. The very nature of the injury would show that the accused consciously and pointedly focussed his attention to injure the vagina of Vijayalakshmi in such a brutal manner suspecting her fidelity. The core question arises whether a man suffering from unsoundness of mind who was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, would go to the extent of inflicting such an injury and correspondingly, kill the child also whom he disowned by smothering.
22. Here, it is a case where the appellant suspected the fidelity, after he returned from foreign country just ten days before the occurrence and that he suspected the fidelity of his wife as evidenced by the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and thereafter, the accused's action culminates in the form of murdering his wife and child.
23. At the time of perpetrating the crime, the accused consciously had in his mind the fact that the deceased Vijayalakshmi for having been unfaithful to him, her sexual organ was the direct factor which he wanted to brutally damage and that he wanted to kill the child which according to him was the off-spring of immorality and illegality.
24. It is therefore, clear that the method and manner in which he inflicted the injuries speak volumes about his conscious status and by no stretch of imagination, his acts could be termed as the outcome of unsoundness of mind. This Court cannot simply jump to the conclusion that he committed the brutal murder, due to the unsoundness of mind and for that matter, as per the criminological principles, all acts of crimes are abrasions of mind and imbalance of mind and no one can gainsay such theory. But, Section 84 I.P.C does not cover the mere mental disease or all sorts of mental disorders as a defence in a criminal case. In KENNY on Outlines of Criminal Law, the following excerpts could fruitfully be referred to:
....(i) Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.
(ii) To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, it he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
(iii) As to his knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, the judges said:
'If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.
(iv) Where a person under an insane delusion as to existing facts commits an offence in consequence thereof, the judges indicated that the answer must depend on the nature of the delusion; but making the assumption that he labours under partial delusion only, and is not in other respects insane, he must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real. For example, if, under the influence of his delusions, he supposes another man to be in the act of attempting to take away his life, and he kills that man, as he supposes, in selfdefence, he would be exempt from punishment. If his delusion was that the deceased had inflicted a serious injury to his character and fortune, and killed him in revenge for such supposed injury, he would be liable to punishment.
Kenny adds, it should be added that, for a defence of insane delusion, the deed must be connected with the delusion directly. That is to say, the accused's conduct while committing the particular actus reus question must have been actuated by his insane delusion. An instance of such connexion (though the delusion was due not to insanity but to sleep) may be cited from Scotland where a man, dreaming that he was struggling with wild beast, killed his baby. On the other hand, a man has been convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses notwithstanding his insanity, when his delusion was only that he was the lawful son of a well-known prince."
HALSBURY'S Laws of England, 4th edn., would on this point state thus:
"Where on a criminal charge, it appears that, at the time of the act or omission giving rise to the offence alleged, the defendant was labouring under a defect of reason owing to a disease of the mind so as not to know the nature and quality of his act, or, if he knew this, so as not to know that what he was doing was wrong, he is not regarded in law as responsible for his act."
GLANVILLE WILLAMS on Text Book on Criminal Law, would on this point highlight thus:
"On referring to the answer in Mc' Naghten's case GLANVILLE WILLIAMS states the answers lay down: a double test for exemption. (A) the defendant must have been suffering from "a defect of reason, from disease of the mind". (B) If he was, there are two or perhaps three further questions for the jury.
1. Is it the case that, in consequence of this defect of reason, the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his act?
2. If he did, did he not know it was wrong?
3. Was he under a delusion? - if that question can ever arise, having regard to question 1.
Although the Mc Naghten rules save the defendant from criminal liability, they do not, of course, protect him from being sent to hospital. In fact, as we shall see, if he succeeds in the defence he must be sent to hospital."
25. It is therefore clear from the analysis of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.6, the Doctor coupled with Exs.P.7 and Ex.P.8, post-mortem certificates of Vijayalakshmi and Venkatesh respectively, that the accused consciously and deliberately, purposely and intentionally, inflicted the injuries by way of wrecking vengeance and to satiate and gratify his motive. The accused to have satiety indulged in such brutal acts knowing the nature of the crime that he committed.
26. It is not a case where he was suffering from any delusions or that he committed such murders assuming as though he was killing a tiger or any other monster which was allegedly torturing as it was the factual position in some other decided cases. The analysis of evidence also does not show that he simply wielded M.O.1, Vettukathi in utter disregard as to which part of the body he was inflicting injuries. It is also pertinent to point out that while killing Vijayalakshmi, he used M.O.1 Vettukathi, but in that brutal manner, he had not chosen to murder the child with the same Vettukathi, but he had chosen to smother it and kill it. It is therefore clear that he intended to torture Vijayalakshmi and put her to death. But, on the other hand, he intended the child which as per an artefact of immorality and illegality, should simply leave the terrestrial world. In this factual matrix, it is crystal clear that the accused had his own reasoning and ratiocination of different standards in committing the murder of both the persons. The deceased Vijayalakshmi was murdered differently in a horrendous and macabre, ghastly and gruesome manner, but the child was simply murdered by smothering.
27. What else is required to impute conscious knowledge and deliberate intention on the part of the accused in perpetrating the crime? Absolutely, no more evidence is warranted to fasten the appellant with guilt as truth is disengaged from falsehood.
28. By applying any standard, the plea of the accused cannot be countenanced.
29. As has been highlighted above, the evidence of D.W.1 in no way in the wake of above proven facts could save the accused from his criminal liability.
30. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 without any contradiction among themselves would in unison and in one voice state that after the commission of the crime, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with M.O.1. A man having the mentality as contemplated under Section 84 I.P.C, would not be able to run in that manner by taking along with him the weapon of offence.
31. Ex.P.4, the admissible portion of the confession and Ex.P.5 the mahazar under which M.O.1 the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused coupled with the oral testimony of P.W.5, the attesting witness to the mahazars Ex.P.4 and P.5, would clearly demonstrate and convey, prove and establish that the weapon of offence was recovered only at the instance of the accused and all those facts would amply focus that the subsequent conduct of the accused can never attract Section 84 I.P.C. P.W.1 and P.W.2 would speak about the fact of the accused having worked in foreign country that he returned only recently before the occurrence that he suspected the fidelity of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, and that it was the motive as well as the root cause for those double murder. A person having the mind of the nature envisaged in Section 84 I.P.C could not have gone several times to foreign countries and worked there and that too for a long period so to say for more than one year at a time and returned to India.
32. It is therefore crystal clear that the accused very much suspected her that despite he having been in the foreign country for a long time, she delivered a child, namely the deceased Venkatesh who was ten months old at the time of his murder.
33. The deep scrutiny of the evidence on record in no way demonstrates that at the time of investigation or at the time of trial, the accused ever came to the adverse notice of the authorities concerned such as the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor or the trial Judge that the accused was suffering from some sort of mental disorder so as to warrant them to invoke their power to get him medically examined through Medical Board or some other competent authority. It would be preposterous and farfetched unrealistic approach to expect that those authorities referred to above, should have got the accused examined through such competent authorities even though there was nothing on record warranting such a course.
34. Ultimately, the analysis of evidence transpires that the prosecution clearly proved the motive part of the crime as well as the conduct of the accused before, at and after the perpetration of the crime. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered as against the appellant/accused.
Point No:(iii)
35. In the light of the discussions supra, we could see no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, Point No.(iii) is also answered as against the appellant.
36. In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, passed in S.C.No.12 of 2002, dated 01.04.2004.
To
1. The Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
2. The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.