Madras High Court
Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 17 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 (3) AJHAR (NOC) 866 (MAD.) (MADURAI BENCH)
Author: K.N.Basha
Bench: S.R.Singharavelu, K.N.Basha
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17/10/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Criminal Appeal No.1556 of 2003 Mariappan .. Appellant Accused vs. State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District. Crime No.386 of 2001 .. Respondent Complainant Prayer Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 29.08.2003 in S.C.No.390 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Madurai at Periakulam. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar ^For Respondent ... Mr.V. Kasinathan Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Madurai at Periakulam in S.C.No.390 of 2002 dated 29.08.2003 convicting the sole accused/appellant Mariappan under Section 449 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The sole accused Mariappan faced the trial for the following two charges :
(i) The first charge is that on 05.11.2001 at 8.00 a.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the deceased Parvathi and locked the door inside and as such committed the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C.
(ii) The second charge is that at the same place and at the same time in pursuance of his trespass into the house of the deceased and locking the door inside with the intention of killing the deceased Parvathi cut the deceased on the backside of her neck and also on the shoulder repeatedly with aruval and thereby caused the death of the deceased punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined as many as 18 witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked 14 exhibits viz., Exs.P.1 to P.14 and also marked material objects M.Os.1 to 9. The defence side three witnesses examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and also marked Exs.D.1 and D.2. At the end of the trial the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 449 I.P.C. and convicted, as stated above.
4. The occurrence is shown to have taken place on 05.11.2001 at 8.00 a.m. at the house of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2, the granddaughters of the deceased, have been examined as eye-witnesses in this case.
5. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows :
(a) P.W.6 is the husband of the deceased. The deceased is paternal aunt of the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the granddaughters of P.W.6 and the deceased.
The deceased, P.W.6 - the husband of the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 - their granddaughters were living together at Ammapatti village. It is also stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 are under the care and custody of P.W.6 and the deceased.
(b) It is the case of P.W.6 that the accused and the father of the accused (D.W.2) were on inimical terms with him for more than 10 years. There was a dispute between the family of the accused and the deceased on the ground of the claim of portion of land belonging to Chinnamanur Pillayar Kovil which was taken on lease by P.W.6 through one Chinnamanur Kuruvaya Pillai. The family of the accused claimed that the said land was only leased out to them. When the accused family demanded P.W.6 to hand over the disputed land, P.W.6, in turn, after the death of the said Kuruvaya Pillai, handed over the land to one Karuppaya Pillai (P.W.11), son of Kuruvaya Pillai. This was questioned by the accused and the accused demanded money for the same as such there were strained feelings between both the families.
(c) One day prior to the date of occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased and questioned the deceased about the whereabouts of her husband, P.W.6. P.Ws.1 and 2 were also present at that time. The accused also told the deceased that they have taken his land and money and he is going to kill her and her husband, P.W.6. At that time, P.W.5, who is the neighbour and brother-in-law of P.W.6 came there and pacified the accused and thereafter the accused left the place saying that he would come again tomorrow and also warned the deceased that if money is not paid he would kill her and her husband.
(d) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e. on 05.11.2001 at 8.00 a.m while the deceased was cooking, the accused entered into the house and also closed the door. When P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned the conduct of the accused about closing the door, the accused stated that if the deceased and her husband, P.W.6 is not paying the amount he is going to kill them and went to the kitchen. Thereafter the accused pulled the tuft of the deceased in his left hand and cut the deceased on her neck with aruval, M.O.1 and while the deceased warded off the cut with her right hand, the cut fell on her fingers causing blood stained injury. Thereafter, the accused said that if he cut her who is going to come to save her. At that time P.Ws.1 and 2 requested the accused not to cut the deceased. The accused threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 also with dire consequences. Again, the accused caught hold of the tuft of the deceased in his left hand and cut the deceased with aruval, M.O.1 on her head repeatedly and the deceased died instantaneously. The accused left that place with the aruval and after opening the door said that he is going to kill P.W.6 also. P.Ws.1 and 2 raised hue and cry. On hearing the same, the neighbours came including P.Ws.4 and 5.
(e) P.W.1 went to the Uthamapalayam Police Station with P.W.5 and her statement was recorded by P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P.1 at 9.00 a.m on 05.11.2001. P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No.386 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He sent the Express F.I.R., Ex.P.8 to the Inspector of Police and to the Court.
(f) P.W.18, Inspector of Police, received the First Information Report, Ex.P.8, on 05.11.2001 at 10.00 a.m. and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.13 and another. He also prepared the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.13. He recovered blood stained earth, M.O.4 and sample earth, M.O.5 under Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.13 and another. He held inquest from 11.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars. Ex.P.14 is the Inquest Report. Thereafter he has sent the body through the Police Constable, P.W.14 for post- mortem.
(g) The Doctor, P.W.9, attached to the Government Hospital, Uthamapalayam, conducted post-mortem at 3.00 p.m. on 05.11.2001. He found the following injuries :
(1)Incised wound over the left temporal and parietal region 10 c.m. X 5 c.m. X Brain substance seen.
(2)Incised wound below the 1st wound 2 c.m. Below 8 c.m.X 3 c.m. X bone deep in occipital region.
(3)Incised would over the Rt. Frontal region 8 c.m. X 3 c.m. X bone deep (4)Incised wound 3 c.m. Below the 2nd wound 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. X bone deep. (5)Incised wound over the Rt. Temporal region 8 c.m. X 5 c.m. X muscle deep. (6)Incised (cut) wound over the Rt. Palm from the base of Rt thumb 10 c.m. X 3 c.m. X 5 c.m X thumb, index finger & middle finger amputated attached only with skin tag attached to the ring finger.
Ex.P.3 is the Post-mortem Certificate. He is of the opinion that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage (head injury) about 6 to 10 hours prior to autopsy.
(h) P.W.18 searched for the accused at Ammapatti, Uthamapalayam, Puthur and Chinnamanur and other areas and on information arrested the accused in front of Subramaniya Swami Temple at Periakulam at 4.30 p.m. on 05.11.2001. He, in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused, Ex.P.6, recovered, M.O.1, Aruval in the presence of P.W.13 and another under Ex.P.7. Thereafter he has remanded the accused for judicial custody. On 06.11.2001, he made arrangements to send the material objects for chemical examination. He also examined P.Ws.9, 12 and 11 to 15 and recorded their statements. On 08.11.2001, he examined P.Ws.16 and 17. On 19.11.2001, he received the post- mortem certificate, Ex.P.3. He also received the chemical examination report, Ex.P.11 and Serologist report, Ex.P.12. On 22.11.2001, he examined P.Ws.18 and 19 and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, P.W.18 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 28.11.2001 for the offence under Sections 449 and 302 I.P.C.
6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials made appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The accused denied each and every incriminating circumstances and also denied his complicity in the crime. The accused has chosen to examine himself as D.W.3 and also examined D.Ws.1 and 2.
7. D.W.1 is the Doctor attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and he has stated that he has examined the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001. It is further stated that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia". The discharge certificate, Ex.D.1 was marked through the Doctor, D.W.1.
8. D.W.2 is the father of the accused and he has stated that the accused was working at Rajasthan for five years. It is further stated by D.W.2 that the accused was sent from the service as he was suffering from mental illness. It is further stated by D.W.2 that his son, the accused, preferred an appeal for reinstatement and for that the Department asked him to produce a certificate to the effect that he is not mentally ill.
9. The accused by examining himself as D.W.3 has stated that due to mental illness he was terminated from service and thereafter he had taken treatment at the Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital. He has marked the termination order as Ex.D.2. It is further stated by the accused that he was still undergoing treatment.
10. The only contention put forward by Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the accused is suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" and as such he is entitled to the benefit to Exception under Section 84 I.P.C. In support of the plea of insanity of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following materials :
(1)The evidence of D.W.1, the Doctor, attached to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who has treated the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001 and also stated that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" . (2)Ex.D.2, the termination order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the accused is medically unfit for service in CRPF due to "Paranoid Schizophrenia". (3)P.W.2, granddaughter of the deceased, stated that the wife of the accused obtained divorce on the ground that the accused was mentally ill.
11. The learned counsel in support the above said contentions placed reliance on the following decisions :-
i.SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748;
ii.PONNAN VS. STATE ETC. reported in 2005-2-L.W. (Crl.) 829;
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the motive and as well as the actual occurrence by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence through the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, and also through the evidence of PW.3 and 4, who have seen the accused coming out of the house of the deceased after the occurrence with weapon, MO.1, Aruval. It is further contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the plea of insanity was not raised by the accused at the initial stage as he has not raised any such plea even at the time of remand. It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that only for the first time before the Court such plea was raised. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that there is absolutely no materials available on record to show that at the time of occurrence, the accused was suffering from any mental illness. It is contended that the accused even on the previous day of the occurrence went to the house of the deceased and warned her in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 and also informed her that he would come on the next day and if PW.6 is not paying the money he would kill her and her husband PW.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the defence has not placed any materials to the effect that the conduct of the accused was abnormal either before or after the occurrence to indicate that the accused was suffering from any mental illness at the time of occurrence. It is also pointed out that the accused understood the questions put to him while he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and answered all the questioned denying the incriminating circumstances.
13. We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions put forward by either side.
14. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt against the accused examined P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the granddaughters of the deceased Parvathi, as eye-witnesses. It is stated by P.W.6 that P.Ws.1 and 2 were under their care and custody. P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically stated that on the previous day of the occurrence, the accused came to their house and demanded money from the deceased and threatened her and further stated that he would come again tomorrow and if P.W.6 is not paying the money he would kill both the deceased and her husband P.W.6. It is the further case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on the next day the accused came at 8.00 a.m. and trespassed into the house and also locked the door inside and thereafter cut the deceased who was cooking in the kitchen. P.Ws.1 and 2 raised hue and cry. It is the case of the prosecution that on hearing the same the neighbour, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who came to the tea stall, seen the accused running after the occurrence with aruval. P.Ws.3 and 5 also spoken about the earlier day occurrence, namely, the shouting of the accused at the deceased and demanding money and pacifying the accused. P.W.6, the husband of the deceased spoken about the motive that he has taken a temple land on lease through one Kuruvaya Pillai and after the death of the said Kuruvaya Pillai, he handed over the said land to P.W.11, the son of the said Kuruvaya Pillai. The grievance of the accused according to P.W.6 is that the land was only leased out to the accused family and as such there were strained feelings between the two families for more than 10 years. It is also stated by P.W.6 that the accused used to quarrel with him and his wife, the deceased, as to how the land leased out to their family could be handed over to P.W.11 and demanded money for the same. This motive also further corroborated by the version of P.W.7, daughter of the deceased.
15. Apart from proving the motive, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the accused entering into the house of the deceased and bolting the doors inside and further cutting the deceased with M.O.1, aruval, is also clear and cogent. P.Ws.3 and 4 also seen the accused running after the occurrence with aruval, M.O.1. Further M.O.1, also recovered at the instance of the accused and found to be stained with blood and as per the serologist report, Ex.P.12, M.O.1 contained with human blood "O" group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased as the cloths of the deceased viz., M.Os.1 to 4 also stained with human blood "O" group. The medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.9 who had conducted post-mortem and issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.3 also corroborated the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, it is very clear that the deceased died due to homicidal violence at the hands of the accused.
16. In this case it is not disputed by the defence regarding the actual occurrence and the accused attacking the deceased and causing her death. The defence raised only a plea of insanity seeking protection under Exception to Section 84 I.P.C. Section 84 of I.P.C. reads as hereunder :
"84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act of that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."
17. It is also relevant to consider the provision under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act reads hereunder :
"105. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in BHIKARI VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in AIR 1966 SC 1 that, "There is no doubt that the burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts. It would, therefore, be correct to say that intention, when it is an essential ingredient of an offence, has also to be established by the prosecution. But the state of mind of a person can ordinarily only be inferred from circumstances. Thus if a person deliberately strikes another with a deadly weapon, which according to the common experience of man-kind is likely to cause an injury and sometimes even a fatal injury depending upon the quality of the weapon and the pat of the body on which it is struck, it would be reasonable to infer that what the accused did was accompanied by the intention to cause a kind of injury which in fact resulted from the act. In such a case the prosecution must be deemed to have discharged the burden which rested upon it to establish an essential ingredient of the offence, namely the intention of the accused inflicting a blow with a deadly weapon. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can no doubt be invoked by a person for nullifying the evidence adduced by the prosecution by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Now it is not for the prosecution to establish that a person who strikes another with a deadly weapon was incapable of knowing the nature of the act of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Every one is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every one is also presumed to know the law. These are not facts which the prosecution has to establish. It is for this reason that Section 105 of the Evidence Act places upon the accused person the burden of proving the exception upon which he relies".
19. As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, the burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts and further the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions under the Indian Penal Code lies on the accused. The essential ingredient of constituting an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is intention to cause the death which has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the conduct of the accused going to the house of the deceased a day prior to the occurrence and threatening the deceased with dire consequences and further on the next day coming and trespassing into the house of the deceased with a deadly weapon, M.O.1 aruval and thereafter deliberately striking the decased with a deadly weapon on her head resulting her death instantaneously makes it crystal clear that the accused had intention to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution must be deemed to have discharged the essential burden which rested upon it to establish the essential ingredient of the offence namely, the intention of the accused inflicting a blow with deadly weapon and causing the death of the deceased.
20. Of course, the accused can invoke Section 84 I.P.C. for nullifying the evidence adduced by the prosecution by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Further, under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the exception lies on the accused.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in yet another decision in SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748 has held that, "13. The burden to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind and as a result thereof he was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence. Section 84 I.P.C. is one of the provisions in Chapter IV I.P.C. which deals with "general exceptions". That Section provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the said Section, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustration (a) to Section 105 is as follows :
"(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act.
The burden of proof is on A". "
22. It is also equally well settled as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 that, "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."
Therefore, in view of the above said principle laid down by the Apex Court, the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused regarding the unsoundness of mind is the time when the offence was committed.
23. In the first decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748, the accused was suffering from "Paranoid schizophrenia". In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied the following circumstances for holding that the accused is entitled for the protection under Section 84 of I.P.C. :
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.
24. In the second decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellant viz., PONNAN VS. STATE ETC. reported in 2005-2-LW.(Crl.) 829, this Court placed on the conduct of the accused for holding that the accused is entitled for the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. as hereunder :
"10. As already held, in this case the evidence of P.W.14, Dr.Kumar would prove that the accused was suffering from some mental disorder and he was not able to understand the effect or consequence of the incident in which he was involved. The accused apart from killing the deceased Chittammal against whom he had no enmity or any motive, has also attacked his own father, P.W.2 and other witnesses, P.Ws.3 to 6 against whom he has no motive or enmity. The accused has not spared even the girl who was taking water in the tap and a small school going boy, Thangaraj. The very nature of the occurrence that the accused went on attacking whoever came on his way itself would show that the accused should have been labouring from some mental disorder at the time of occurrence."
25. But in this instant case, there is no such circumstances available on record as relied by the Apex Court and this Court in the decisions cited supra indicating the state of mind of the accused viz., unsoundness of mind at the crucial time of commission of the offence. Therefore, those two decisions were not applicable to the facts of this case.
26. In the case on hand, the defence placed reliance on the following circumstances :
(1)The evidence of D.W.1, the Doctor, attached to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who has treated the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001 and also stated that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" . (2)Ex.D.2, the termination order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the accused is medically unfit for service in CRPF due to "Paranoid Schizophrenia". (3)P.W.2, granddaughter of the deceased, stated that the wife of the accused obtained divorce on the ground that the accused was mentally ill.
27. The fact remains from the above said circumstances it is not at all established by the defence that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind or incapable of knowing the nature of the act at the crucial point of time of the commission of the offence. The Doctor, D.W.1 also not issued any certificate to the effect that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid schizophrenia". It is further relevant to be noted that the accused given evidence only to the effect that he had undergone treatment for a limited period, namely, from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001. Even for undergoing such treatment, no documents produced. D.W.2, who is none else than the father of the accused also not stated in his evidence that the behaviour of the accused was abnormal. On the other hand, it is stated by D.W.2 that the accused denied that he has mentally ill and appealed to the Department for his re-instatement. Even in the cross-examination it is admitted by D.W.2 that his son, the accused recognizes him.
28. The accused also examined himself as D.W.3 and given deposition clearly that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that his conduct or behaviour was abnormal. As a matter of fact, the accused also clearly stated in his evidence that he is aware that he is present in the Court and the court is a Fast Track Court. Further, the accused stated that the Judge is called as Fast Track Judge. It is further relevant to be noted that in his evidence the accused categorically pleaded for insanity. He has also stated in his evidence that he has received the termination order under Ex.D.2 and further he has appealed for re-instatement. Even when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he understood the questions put to him regarding the incriminating circumstances and categorically denied the same. Further the accused while he was questioned under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., after the Trial Judge has found him guilty and questioned him about the sentence, the accused has categorically stated that if the Court comes to the conclusion that if he is in sound mind he should be given full salary and re-instatement and on the other hand, if the Court comes to the conclusion that he is the person of unsound mind he should be acquitted. Therefore even the evidence adduced by the defence as well as the answers of the accused while he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., makes it crystal clear that the accused was not suffering from any mental illness at the time of the occurrence.
29. Apart from the above said circumstances, as already stated, the accused by knowing well about the consequence of his conduct went to the house of the deceased a day prior to the occurrence and warned her in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that he would come again on the next day morning and if P.W.6 is not paying money he would kill the deceased and P.W.6 her husband, and on the fateful day of the occurrence he went to the house of the deceased with deadly weapon, M.O.1 and closing the door and thereafter striking the deceased with deadly weapon on the vital part, namely, head, it cannot be stated that he was of unsoundness of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he was doing.
30. Therefore for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the defence failed to discharge its burden of proving that the accused was under the unsoundness of mind at the crucial time of commission of the offence. The defence neither proved the unsoundness of mind preceding the occurrence nor proved the same following the occurrence.
31. The appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Madurai at Periakulam in S.C.No.390 of 2002 dated 29.08.2003.
To
1)The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Madurai at Periakulam.
2) - Do - thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.
3)The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4)The District Collector, Theni.
5)The Director General of Police, Chennai - 4.
6)The Sub Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District.
7)The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.