Ravi @ Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2020

[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ravi @ Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2020

Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.190 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kalpetta, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') pursuant to the final report filed in Crime No.527/2014 of Ambalavayal Police station by the Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery.

2. Prosecution allegation in brief is that, the accused due to his previous enmity towards his mother-deceased Lakshmi and sister-Sarada, in connection with some property disputes, on 25.10.2014 at about 07.30 pm, with an intention of causing death of them, had assaulted the aforesaid Lakshmi and Sarada with deadly weapons like axe and handle of spade, at the premises of their house bearing door No.XVIII/272 (XIV/428) of Nenmeni Grama Panchayat. As a result of the assault, Sarada and Lakshmi sustained grievous injuries and Lakshmi Crl.A.No.1344/2016 3 succumbed to the injuries later.

3. For the occurrence in question, Ext.P1-First Information Statement was lodged by PW1, a neighbour of the accused, on 26.10.2014 at 08.30 am, before the Station House Officer, Ambalavayal police station. PW11-the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police recorded Ext.P1 statement of PW1 and registered Ext.P1(a)-FIR on 26.10.2014 at 08.30 am.

4. On receipt of Ext.P1(a), PW13-the Circle Inspector of Police, Pulpally police station, who was holding additional duties of Bathery circle had conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Lakshmi and prepared Ext.P2-Inquest Report. In Ext.P2-Inquest Report, column No.11 is pertaining to the apparent cause of death. In Ext.P2, PW13 noted that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained to her.

5. On 30.01.2015, PW14 took over the investigation of this case. During the course of investigation, it was brought out that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC as well. Hence PW14 filed Ext.P10 Crl.A.No.1344/2016 4 report before the court incorporating the above Sections. He questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements, completed the investigation and filed Final Report before the court.

6. The said case was taken on file as C.P. No.39/2015 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kalpetta after complying with the usual formalities. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC and numbered the case as S.C.No.190/2015 and later made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta for trial and disposal.

7. The accused, who had been in judicial custody in connection with the trial of the case, was produced before the court below. After hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

8. During the course of the trial, PW1 to PW16 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P20. MO1 and MO2 were Crl.A.No.1344/2016 5 marked as material objects. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, to which the accused denied his complicity in the crime.

9. The learned Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial, did not deem fit and proper for recording an acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The accused was called upon to enter on his defence evidence and adduced evidence which he might have in support thereof. On behalf of the defence, DW1 was examined and marked Exts.D1 to D5.

10. DW1 was working as Junior Consultant in Psychiatry, Government Mental Health Centre, Kuthiravattam. On 21.11.2014, he had examined the accused and issued Ext.D2 certificate stating that the accused was suffering from 'unspecified psychosis'. At the time of issuing Ext.D2, the accused was not fit to stand for trial and required institutional care. On 09.02.2015 and 26.02.2015, he had examined the accused and issued Exts.D3 and D4 certificates. In Ext.D4, he had stated that the accused did not require any further Crl.A.No.1344/2016 6 institutional care and he was fit to stand for trial. DW1 stated that the accused was examined by yet another Doctor by name Dr.Binu Prasad-Junior Consultant in psychiatry in the same hospital and issued a certificate stating that the accused was suffering from psychosis Not Otherwise Specified (N or S). In cross examination, DW1 stated that he could not say the exact date on which the accused became a mental patient for the first time without perusing his treatment records, if any, prior to 31.10.2014.

11. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial and on perusal of the entire evidence, declined to accept the plea of insanity and found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default of payment of the said fine, he should undergo simple imprisonment for three years under Section 302 of IPC. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years Crl.A.No.1344/2016 7 and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default of payment of fine, should undergo simple imprisonment for eighteen months under Section 307 of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Sections 326 and 324 of the IPC in view of the provisions contemplated under Section 71 of the IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.C.S.Abdul Sammad, after taking us through the entire evidence on record, contended that the accused had taken up the plea of insanity by placing materials before the trial court, at the earliest opportunity, claiming benefit under Section 84 of the IPC. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the wife of the accused filed an affidavit before us stating that her husband is mentally unfit and currently undergoing sentence consequent to the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. She filed the affidavit for and on behalf of her husband. According to her, the appellant was undergoing treatment at Taluk Head Quarters Crl.A.No.1344/2016 8 Hospital, Sulthan Bathery since 27.07.2012. She produced Annexure-A1-copy of the medical records issued by the Superintendent, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Sultan Bathery to show that the appellant had been undergoing treatment for mental illness as O.P.No.18075/12 on 27.07.2012, 8/12, 12.10.2012, 09.11.2012, 14.12.2012, 08.03.2013, 12.04.2013, 14.06.2013, 12.07.2013, 14.06.2013, 09.08.2013, 13.09.2013, 11.10.2013, 08.11.2013, 13.12.2013 and 10.01.2014 respectively. She further stated that the appellant had been taken to Mental Health Centre, Kuthiravattom as O.P.No.1854/14 on 15.10.2014 by Annexure-A2. In view of Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2, the deponent affirmed that the appellant was undergoing mental health treatment for unspecified psychosis and advised regular checkups. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court was legally obliged to consider the circumstances which preceded, attempted and followed the act committed by the accused. Highlighting the conduct of the accused, the learned Crl.A.No.1344/2016 9 counsel for the appellant contended that, when the conduct of the appellant was apparently abnormal, the prosecution was obliged to subject the accused for medical examination immediately, especially during the investigation, and place before the court all the evidences that would be available to show that the accused was not in a proper state of mind at the time of committing the alleged offence. The category of psychotic disorder not otherwise specified includes delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, about which there is inadequate information to make a specific diagnosis or about which there is contradictory information or disorders with psychotic symptoms that do not meet the diagnosis of any specific psychotic disorder. Highlighting the conduct of the accused, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the diagnostic stability of unspecified psychosis is low compared to other psychotic disorders. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the court below mechanically entered a finding that on the date of commission of the offence, Crl.A.No.1344/2016 10 the accused was not suffering from insanity and as such, the plea of insanity could not be upheld in this case.

13. PW12-Dr.Ratheesh.P.T, Assistant Professor & Assistant Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Kozhikode had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 postmortem certificate, in which as many as ten antemortem injuries were noted. On going through the evidence let in by PW12, we have noticed that the trial court had taken note of the entire antemortem injuries mentioned in Ext.P9-postmortem certificate. In the above circumstances, we think that it is not necessary to have the details of the antemortem injuries sustained by the deceased in this judgment. PW12 opined that the victim died out of the injury sustained by her in the neck and head due to multiple blunt force impacts inflicted by using a heavy rod like MO1 handle of spade. On going through the evidence of PW12 and Ext.P9 postmortem certificate, it is proved that the victim suffered a homicidal death.

Crl.A.No.1344/2016

14. PW1, who is a neighbour of the accused stated that on 25.10.2014, at about 07.30 pm, he heard a hue and cry from the house of the victims, namely, Lakshmi and Sarada. Immediately, PW1 had rushed to the scene of occurrence at the courtyard of the house where he found that they had sustained fatal injuries. When PW1 saw the victims, blood was profusely oozing out from the injuries sustained by them. While so, Lakshmi was unconscious and Sarada was struggling with her life. PW1 saw the accused on the veranda of the house holding a handle of a spade. On seeing PW1, the accused threw away the handle of the spade to the courtyard of the house. He uttered that Lakshmi and Sarada had been murdered. PW1 made arrangements to bring an autorickshaw to the scene of occurrence and within no time, PW2 brought an autorickshaw and the injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Bathery. On examination, Lakshmi was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode as her condition was critical. Crl.A.No.1344/2016 12 On the way to Medical College Hospital, Lakshmi succumbed to the injuries. PW1 also identified the accused before court. According to him, the accused was not on good terms with his mother-Lakshmi and sister-Sarada on account of family property dispute. PW1 further stated that on account of previous enmity, the accused had murdered his mother-Lakshmi and attempted to murder his sister-Sarada. PW1 identified his signature in Ext.P1 and also identified MO1 and MO2 before court.

15. PW8-Sakkeena was a neighbour of the victims and the accused. She stated that, on hearing a loud cry from the house of the victims-Lakshmi and Sarada, she had rushed to the said scene where she found the accused carrying a handle of a spade. Her evidence tallies with the evidence adduced by PW1. She stated in clear terms that she could not witness the occurrence and she had rushed to the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence.

16. PW7-Sarada is an injured witness. She stated that her brother had committed matricide. According to her, her Crl.A.No.1344/2016 13 husband deserted her long back. Hence she was constrained to live with her mother in their family house. She had no children in the wedlock. The accused also deserted his wife and children. Thereafter, he was residing along with their mother in the family house. On 25.10.2014, around 07.00 pm, while mother Lakshmi and herself were watching TV serial at their residence, the accused came and demanded money from them. However, their mother was not inclined to sell the property as desired by the accused. Since the demand was turned down by the mother, according to PW7, the accused pulled her mother into the courtyard and while pressurising his demands on her, he pushed her down on the courtyard of the house. When PW7 had attempted to help her, the accused had beaten her mother with a handle of the spade. The handle of the spade had broken into pieces. Then the accused took up MO2 axe and attempted to beat them with it. Both of them were taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital by the neighbours. PW7 underwent treatment at the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Sulthan Bathery whereas Crl.A.No.1344/2016 14 her mother was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for better treatment. PW7 had sustained grievous injuries on her head and forehead. Two numbers of her teeth were broken. PW7 also identified MO1 and MO2 before court.

17. PW2 is a neighbour of the accused and the victims. He stated that, on the date of occurrence, he brought an autorickshaw to the place of occurrence as required by PW1. At the place of occurrence, the victim Lakshmi was found unconscious after having sustained fatal injuries on her vital parts.

18. In support of the evidence let in by PW7, PW4-Dr.Mini Rajagopal, Assistant Professor in Conservative Dentistry, Government Dental college, Calicut, adduced evidence to show that on 01.11.2014, she had treated PW7-Sarada and issued Ext.P5 certificate.

19. On going through the entire evidence, especially the evidence of PW1 and PW7, it is clear that both the deceased and PW7 sustained grievous injuries. Lakshmi died as a result of the Crl.A.No.1344/2016 15 grievous injuries sustained to her. PW7 is an injured witness. Her evidence is more reliable. On going through the entire evidence, especially the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW7 and PW8 , it is clear that on the date of occurrence, the accused assaulted PW7 and the deceased with MO1 and MO2 which resulted in the death of Lakshmi and grievous injuries suffered by PW7. On going through the evidence of PW12, who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P9, we are convinced that it was the accused and the accused alone who caused the death of his mother Lakshmi on the date of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. However, the main question arises for consideration is as to whether the accused inflicted injuries to PW7 and the deceased with an intention to murder PW7 and murder the deceased as alleged by the prosecution?

20. PW1 admitted that the accused had undergone treatment for mental illness at Mental Health Hospital, Kuthiravattam. On going through the evidence of PW7, who is Crl.A.No.1344/2016 16 none other than the sister of the accused, it is revealed that the accused was married earlier and he had two children. However, his wife and children had been residing separately for a considerably long period. PW7 admitted that the accused demanded property from his mother and the mother was reluctant to part with it. Since his mother did not heed to his request, he became violent and assaulted her. PW7 who was present at the scene of occurrence had intervened in the matter and made an attempt to prevent the accused from attacking their mother. PW7 admitted that the accused had underwent treatment at the mental hospital before the date of occurrence. He was taken to the hospital regularly.

21. PW16, the Inspector of Police, who had conducted investigation in this case did not conduct any investigation touching the mental illness of the accused presumably for the reason that he has not identified any symptoms of insanity on the accused on the date of commission of the offence.

22. It is clear from the bare reading of the Diary extract Crl.A.No.1344/2016 17 that the accused had been suffering from mental illness during the pendency of this case. Ext.D2-Mental Condition Report forwarded by the Superintendent Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode and issued by Dr.Anupama Bhargavan, Junior Consultant of the same hospital inter alia would show that as on 21.11.2014, the accused had been suffering from 'unspecified psychosis'. Ext.D2 to D5-Mental Condition Reports would show that the accused had been suffering from 'unspecified psychosis' during the pendency of the proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After noting that the condition of the accused is stable to face the trial, the learned Magistrate committed the case before the Court of Sessions.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously challenge the prosecution case to the effect that it was the appellant who inflicted injuries to his mother and sister on the date of occurrence. Going by the entire evidence adduced before us, we are satisfied with the findings of the court below that Lakshmi was killed and Sarada who is the sister of the appellant Crl.A.No.1344/2016 18 was assaulted by the appellant as alleged by the prosecution.

24. As indicated earlier, PW1 had categorically admitted in his evidence that the appellant had undergone treatment in the Mental Health Centre, Kuthiravattam. Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 would show that the accused had been suffering from mental insanity even prior to the date of occurrence in this case.

25. Before we proceed to analyse the rival submissions, it is apposite to restate the settled legal position about matters to be considered for deciding the benefit under Section 84 of the IPC. The law presumes that every person committing an offence is sane and is liable for his acts, though in specified circumstances it may be rebuttable. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity has been considered by the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1964 SC 1563]. The Supreme Court held as follows:-

"(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused Crl.A.No.1344/2016 19 was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the IPC: 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."

26. Section 84 of the IPC provides an exception that an act will not be an offence, if done by a person who, at the time of doing the same, 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. Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a plea of insanity is raised by the accused, the burden is on the accused to substantiate the plea.

27. In Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1970) 3 SCC 533], the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"2. It is now well-settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this lies on the accused."

28. On going through the oral evidence of PW16, it is clear that no investigation was conducted touching the appellant's Crl.A.No.1344/2016 20 mental illness. It is further clear from the proceedings that the appellant was suffering from mental illness when the case was under investigation. The facts in the present case persuade us to believe that the prosecution has deliberately omitted to conduct investigation with regard to the appellant's mental illness. In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 16 SCC 109], Sidhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 1 SCC 124] and Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 7 SCC 718)], the Supreme Court opined (in Sidhapal Kamala Yadav's case) as follows:-

"8. ...........................The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused........."

29. In the case of Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand [(2011) 11 SCC 495] the Supreme Court, while determining an offence under Section 84 of IPC, opined that it is Crl.A.No.1344/2016 21 the totality of the circumstances seen, in the light of the evidence on record, which would prove that the appellant in the said case was suffering from insanity. The court added that it is imperative to take into consideration of the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime. Going by the evidence including the conduct of the accused during trial, we are satisfied that the accused was suffering from mental illness before the incident, at the time of the incident and after the incident in this case.

30. In Vijayee Singh & others v. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190], the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"26....................... But if the accused succeeds in creating a reasonable doubt or shows preponderance of probability in favour of his plea, the obligation on his part under Section 105 gets discharged and he would be entitled to an acquittal."

31. Applying the principles of law laid down by the Apex court to the facts of this case including the evidence of eye witnesses to whom we have already adverted to, the defence Crl.A.No.1344/2016 22 evidence adduced by DW1, Exts.D2 to D5, Annexure A1 and Annexure-A2, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 84 of the IPC. We are also satisfied that the appellant had been suffering from 'unspecified psychosis' for a considerable long period of time and that the appellant had acted on account of unsoundness of mind. The appellant was also suffering from mental illness prior to the occurrence. The affidavit filed by the wife of the appellant before this court along with Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2-copy of the medical records issued by the competent medical officers would inter alia show that the appellant had been suffering from mental illness before the date of occurrence. We have reasons to believe that the appellant committed the act, which, if he had been of sound mind, would have been an offence of murder and that he was, at the time when the act was committed, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act that it was wrong. In other words, we find that the accused had committed Crl.A.No.1344/2016 23 the acts in question namely the assault on his mother resulting in her death and assault on her sister resulting in serious injuries to her body, but for the case of the accused falling under Section 84 of the IPC, the said act would have been an act of murder and an attempt to murder.

32. It has come out in evidence that the accused had been suffering from 'unspecified psychosis'. Psychosis is characterised by an impaired relationship with reality. It is a symptom of serious mental disorders. People who are experiencing psychosis may have either hallucinations or delusions. On delusion affecting the behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself and to others. Section 335 of Cr.P.C. has its thrust mainly towards the interest of the society in general. The Section at the same time seeks to protect such accused from harming himself. No doubt, the paramount interest of the society shall not be sacrificed at the cost of a person suffering from insanity. As already indicated, even if there is no criminal liability in view of Section 84 of IPC, the Crl.A.No.1344/2016 24 accused has committed the act which resulted his mother's death. In the circumstances, it is dangerous to let such a person move freely in an orderly society without imposing suitable conditions as future chance of recurrence of lunacy in such cases may not be ruled out in which event the society will be in danger. The court cannot assume the fact that if such person is let off freely, he would not repeat similar dangerous acts or would not harm himself.

33. Judged by the provisions contemplated under Sections 335 and 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the view that the appellant is to be detained in safe custody in terms of Section 335(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that unspecified psychosis is a dangerous mental illness, we are of the further view that at this stage, it is not in the interest of justice to deliver the appellant for the time being to his wife or friend of the appellant as provided under Section 335(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

Crl.A.No.1344/2016

34. Section 335 of the Cr.P.C. gives two options to the Magistrate or court before whom or which the trial had been held to deal with such a person in accordance with clauses (a) and (b) to subsection(1) under which such a person is ordered to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as the Magistrate or court thinks fit, or he may be ordered to be delivered to any relative or friend of such a person. Subsection (4) of Section 335 provides that the Magistrate or court shall report to the State Government, the action taken under subsection (1). Section 336 of Cr.P.C. gives the power to the State Government to empower the officer in charge of the jail in which a person is confined under the provisions of Section 330 or 335 to discharge all or any of the functions of the Inspector General of Prisons under Section 337 or Section 338 of the Code. Section 338 deals with the procedure where the prisoner with mental illness is detained under the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 330 or Section 335 and such Inspector General or visitors shall certify that, in his or their judgment, he Crl.A.No.1344/2016 26 may be released without danger of his doing injury to himself or to any other person, the State Government may thereupon order him to be released, or to be detained in custody or to be transferred to a public lunatic asylum (at present Mental Health Establishment) if he has not been already sent to such an asylum; and, in case it orders him to be transferred to an asylum, may appoint a commission, consisting of a judicial and two medical Officers. Subsection (2) provides that such commission shall make a formal inquiry into the state of mind of such a person, take such evidence as is necessary, and shall report to the State Government, which may order his release or detention as it thinks fit. Section 339(1) of Code provides that whenever any relative or friend of any person detained under the provisions of section 330 or section 335 desires that he shall be delivered to his care and custody, the State Government may, upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the satisfaction of the State Government, that the person delivered shall be properly taken care of and Crl.A.No.1344/2016 27 prevented from doing injury to himself or any other person; be produced for the inspection of such officer, and at such times and places, as the State Government may direct.

35. In the result, we set aside the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 of IPC. We find that the appellant has committed the act of assaulting his mother and sister with MO1 handle of spade and MO2 axe resulting in death of his mother and serious injuries to his sister for the foregoing reasons stated in the judgment. We, therefore, acquit the appellant on the ground that, at the time at which he is alleged to have committed the offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged, or that it was contrary to law. We direct that the appellant shall be kept in safe custody for the present as provided under Section 335 of the Cr.P.C. Sub- section (2) of Section 335 provides that the order for detention shall be in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government under the Lunacy Act, 1912. As the Lunacy Act, Crl.A.No.1344/2016 28 1912 is not in force at present and it has been repealed and the relevant Act in force is the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, we find that the latter Act is applicable in this case. We, therefore, direct that the appellant is to be detained in one of the mental health establishments in the State in accordance with the rules, if any, framed by the State Government. It is open to the State Government to direct the appellant to be delivered to any of his relatives or friends in accordance with law. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Director General of Prisons and the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala in terms of Section 335(4) for taking further action in terms of Sections 338 and 339 of the Cr.P.C. The said authorities are directed to submit a report of action taken by them from time to time before the trial court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The court below is directed to take further follow up action and issue necessary orders in the best interest of the appellant in accordance with Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C.

Crl.A.No.1344/2016

The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 IPC stand set aside. The accused stands acquitted subject to Section 335(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. as stated above.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE ajt Crl.A.No.1344/2016 30 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS IN O.P. NO.18075/12 DATED 27.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HEAD QUARTES HOSPITAL, SULTAN BATHERY. ANNEXURE-A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF MENTAL HEALTH CENTE, KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE AS O.P. NO.1854/14 DATED 15.10.2014 ATTESTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, SULTAN BATHERY

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court