Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C.S.Sudha, J.

This jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C has been filed by the accused in S.C.No.357/2018 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

1.2. The prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet is as follows - the accused due to his strong feelings of enmity towards his 75 year old mother, namely, Thresiamma and with the intention to kill her, on 21/02/2015 at 09.00 a.m, hacked her several times with an axe on the back of her head causing grievous injuries resulting in her death. The place of occurrence is inside the kitchen of their house bearing no.2/268, Bharananganam Grama Panchayath. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under the above mentioned Section.

21.1. PW1 when examined stands by the case narrated by him in Ext.P1 FIS. PW1 in the box has a case that he was accompanied by his brother Saji (PW2) also, while on his way to clean the water tank. In the cross-examination he said that on the date of the incident he had not seen any signs of mental illness in Benny. He also denied the suggestion put to him that Benny (accused) and his siblings are suffering from mental illness.

22. PW2, Saji Joseph, the brother of PW1, supports the case narrated by PW1. According to him, he heard Benny (accused) telling the police that he had hacked his mother to death with an axe. When the police moved away (മ യ സമയന), he asked Benny what had happened. Benny told him that he had hacked his mother to death with an axe. At that time he noticed that Benny was slightly perplexed. (അവന ആ സമയന യ ര പഭ്രമന മ പതമ ണ കണത. See Page No.7 of his deposition). He then asked Benny as to why he had done such an act, to which the latter replied that his mother spoiled/ruined his future by making him a mentally ill person. PW2 further says that he and Benny used to talk when they used to go for bathing in the stream ( നത ട). Then also Benny used to say it was his mother who spoiled his future by making him a mentally sick person. He used to see Benny daily during the time of the incident. (എന ന ട അത യയത എ ഞ ന ന ദ ച സമയന എ മ നസ ക നര ഗ യ ക എന് ഭ്ര വ കളഞത അമച യ ണ എ വന ഞ . അത ന മ ന ഞങൾ തമ ല ക ള ക ന ന ക സമയവ ന മറ ന വർതമ നന യ ണ യ ര . അനപ ഴ ന ഇയ ൾ ത മനസ കനര ഗ യ ക യത അമച യ ണ ന ഭ്ര വ കളഞത അമച യ ണ ന യ ണ യ ര . സനഭ്രവക ലത ഞ ന യ സ രമ യ ക ണ ണ യ ര . See pages 7 and 8 of his deposition).

23. PW3, Saji Mathew, yet another neighbour of the deceased deposed that on being informed by a neighbour about the incident, he went to the hospital where Thresiamma had been taken and thereafter to her house. When he reached her house, Benny (accused) was sitting inside a room with the door bolted. When he called out to Benny, the latter opened the door. He then asked Benny as to what had happened to his mother. Benny replied that he had hacked his mother to death with an axe as his mother did not accede to his demand for purchase of laxative as he had constipation for the last two to three days. According to PW3, the relationship between the mother and the son was good. PW3 further stated that a week before the incident, while he and the accused were cutting grass, Benny had told him that his mother was responsible for making him a mentally sick person. (......വയറ ല ന ന രണ മD ദ വസമ യ ന കന ട യര എ ന അമ മര നമട ച ത ലഎ ന അവന ഞ. അത ക ണ ണ അമ യ ക ത എ ന അവന ഞ.

30. Now the question is, did the accused commit the murder with the required mens rea or whether by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or incapable of knowing what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The possibility of the accused not being normal on the date of incident is quite clear from the extra-judicial confession he made to the witnesses wherein he gives the reason for hacking his mother to death. It is not a normal conduct of a son to hack his mother just because she refused to accede to his demand for medicine. It is true that the burden to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident, is on the accused. But this burden is not as onerous as that of the prosecution and it is sufficient that the accused is able to prove his case by a preponderance of probabilities and to raise a doubt in the mind of the court regarding his mental condition. It is not necessary for him to prove his defense to the hilt. After the incident, the accused made no attempts to run away from the place of occurrence. On the other hand, after the incident, he retires to a room in the same house and bolts the door. When asked to come out of the room, he comes out without any resistance and on being asked as to what had happened, he confessed to PW2, PW3 and PW6 that he had hacked his mother with MO7 axe. As held in Sheralli Wali Mohammed (Supra), behaviour, antecedent, attendant, and after the event, are relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is true that even if the motive or reason stated is atrocious or that the accused made no attempts to run away from the place of the incident and he continued in the place of incident itself, is no ground to hold that he was mentally unsound at the time of the incident. However, on going through the records in the case, we find overwhelming evidence to show that the accused was mentally unsound before and after the incident.