CRLA/1255/2014
2023 Latest Caselaw 3311 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                                    AND

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO


                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1255 of 2014

JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

        Challenge    in   this   Appeal   is   to   the   judgment,   dated

27.10.2014, rendered in S.C.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the learned

XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka, whereby the

accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay

a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month.


2.     The facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and

may be stated as follows:


3.     The deceased by name Gajjala Apparao was an employee

working in Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. On 11.07.2012 at about

08:30 a.m., he entered the premises of the said Steel Plant on his

bicycle to attend his duties. At that time, the accused suddenly

attacked him with an iron rod and beat him indiscriminately on his

head and other parts of the body. P.W.2, who is an employee

working in the Steel Plant, also entered the Steel Plant premises to

attend his duties. He was behind the deceased and witnessed the
                                   2                            CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                         Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


accused attacking the deceased with iron road and beating him.

When he tried to interfere to rescue the deceased the accused also

attacked P.W.2. Immediately P.W.2 went and informed about the

said incident to P.W.1, who is the Inspector of Police, C.I.S.F, Steel

Plant, Visakhapatnam. Both of them together came running to the

scene of offence. At that time, they found the deceased lying on the

road with injuries. The accused, after seeing them, has thrown away

the iron road and escaped from the scene of offence. Thereafter, the

accused went and attacked another two persons with another iron

rod in the Steel Plant. At that time, he was apprehended by the

other employees of the Steel Plant along with the rod.


4.    The deceased, who sustained injuries in the hands of the

accused, was shifted to the Hospital for medical treatment. While

undergoing medical treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries.

Thereafter, on the report lodged by P.W.1 with the Steel Plant police,

the police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2012 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused. During the

course of investigation, police seized M.O.1 - rod, which was used

by the accused to attack the deceased in this case, in the presence

of mediators. The police have also seized M.O.2 - rod, which was

used by the accused in attacking the other two injured after

attacking the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased

was sent for postmortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted
                                     3                        CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found multiple external

and internal injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

He opined that the deceased died on account of the head injuries

that were caused with a blunt object. Accordingly, he has issued the

postmortem report to that effect.


5.    After the accused was arrested and when he was produced

before the Magistrate for his remand, the Magistrate has directed to

take the accused to the Hospital for treatment relating to his mental

condition. Accordingly, he was admitted in Government Hospital for

Mental Care, Visakhapatnam, where treatment was given to him

relating to the mental illness. The Doctors opined that the accused

was suffering from mental ill-health and mild mental retardation

and he was behaving violently.


6.    After completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet

against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC, as the investigation revealed that the accused caused injuries

to the deceased with an iron rod i.e., M.O.1 and thereby killed him.


7.    After the case was committed by the committal Court to the

Sessions Court, a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against

him. The same was read over and explained to the accused. The

accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.
                                   4                          CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


8.    During the course of trial, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1

to 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to 8 documents and M.Os.1

to 3 material objects to substantiate its case against the accused.


9.    After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to enable him to explain the

incriminating evidence that was adduced against him by the

prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence

that was adduced against him and stated that at the time of offence,

he was suffering from mental illness and he does not know what he

did at the time of committing the offence.


10.   At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence

on record and on appreciation of the same, eventually, the learned

Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of commission of offence of

murder of the deceased and accordingly, convicted him for the said

offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- as detailed supra.


11.   Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal is preferred by the

appellant questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment

of conviction and sentence.


12.   When the Appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned

counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
                                   5                          CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


13.   Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend

that it is not possible for the accused to gain entry into the Steel

Plant, as the personnel of the Steel Plant would allow only the

employees or the persons, who are holding valid ID cards and

passes, and as such, the prosecution failed to prove as to how the

accused gained entry into the Steel Plant where the offence took

place. She would then contend that the evidence on record clearly

shows that the accused was suffering from mental illness and

because of the said mental ill-health from which the accused was

suffering that he was falsely implicated in this case leaving the real

culprit, who is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.


14.   She would also contend that even if it is found that the

accused gained entry into the premises of the Steel Plant and that

the injuries are caused to the deceased by the accused, as the

evidence on record proves that he has been suffering from mental

ill-health, under Section 84 IPC that it cannot be held that he has

committed any offence. In a way, she has invoked the general

exceptions and would contend that the accused cannot be held

liable for causing the death of the deceased in this case for the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.


15.   Learned counsel for the appellant would also alternatively

contend that even if it is found that the accused caused the said

injuries to the deceased, as there is no motive or mens rea on his
                                  6                          CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                      Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


part in killing the deceased, he cannot be held liable for causing

murder of the deceased. She would also contend that when there is

no motive and when it is found that injuries are caused on account

of the mental ill-health from which the accused is suffering that the

Court may consider the case under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

Therefore, she would pray to allow the Appeal and acquit the

accused.


16.   Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

vehemently contend that the evidence of the eye-witness, who is

P.W.2, and the evidence of the other witnesses, who are the

employees of the said Steel Plant and also the evidence of the

C.I.S.F Police, who are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.15, clinchingly

proves that the accused entered the premises of the Steel Plant

somehow and that he has attacked the deceased with an iron rod

and thereafter he attacked another two employees of the Steel Plant.

Therefore, he would submit that the evidence of the said witnesses,

who are all independent witnesses, clearly proves that the accused

gained entry into the Steel Plant somehow and thereafter attacked

the deceased with iron road and caused injuries. He would contend

that when the case is based on the direct evidence of the eye-

witnesses, motive is not significant and he would contend that

motive only plays an important role in a case which is rested on

circumstantial evidence and absence of motive cannot be the sole
                                  7                          CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                      Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


ground to exonerate the accused from his liability in committing the

murder of the deceased.


17.    He would also contend that the burden to prove that the

accused is suffering from unsound mind and that he is not capable

of understanding the nature of the act committed by him is on the

accused and he failed to discharge the same either by adducing any

direct evidence or by showing the preponderance of probabilities

from the evidence that is available on record. He would also contend

that suffering from slight mental illness or mental aberration itself

cannot be a valid ground to exonerate the accused from his liability

of committing the murder of the deceased in this case. He would

contend that the evidence of the eye-witness - P.W.2 and other

evidence available on record that is adduced by the prosecution

clinchingly proves that it is the accused who has caused injuries to

the deceased and killed him. Therefore, he is liable for punishment

under Section 302 IPC. He would contend that it is not a case to

invoke 304 Part-II IPC. He strongly supported the impugned

judgment of conviction of the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of

the Criminal Appeal.


18.    Now the points that emerge for determination in this Appeal

are:


i) whether the deceased met with homicidal death.
                                      8                             CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                             Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014


ii)    If so, whether the accused caused injuries to the deceased

and whether he is responsible for the said homicidal death of the

deceased and committed murder of him and whether he is liable for

punishment under Section 302 IPC.


iii)   Whether the accused was suffering from unsound mind at the

time of the offence and whether he is incapable of understanding

the nature of the acts committed by him at the time of commission

of the offence and whether he is liable to be exonerated from his

liability for causing death of the deceased under Section 84 IPC or

not.


POINT No.1:-


19.    P.W.5, who is the Doctor who held autopsy over the dead

body of the deceased, categorically deposed in his evidence that he

found five external injuries and five internal injuries on the dead

body of the deceased at the time of the postmortem examination. He

stated that he found the following injuries on the dead body of the

deceased:


       External: 1. Split lacerations present at below lower lip of 5.0 x 0.6
       cms x bone deep
       2. Penetrating wounds on left cheeck of 1.0 x 0.5 x bone deep
       3. 3 chop wounds or split lacerations on forehead of 8.0 x 5 cms each
       4. Closed wound fracture of right leg at its middle one third
       5. Closed wound fracture of left fore arm at its middle one third..

       Internal: i) Contusion all over the skull vault
       1.

Sutural (coronal) fracture present on the skull vault

2. Subdural haemerage present on right hemisphere of brain

3. Base of the skull fractural at optic chiasma of 5.0 cms 9 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

4. Left clavicle fractured at its midial end

5. Mandible fractured at the chin area.

20. He further deposed that he is of the opinion that cause of

death to the best of his knowledge and belief is head injury. He

stated that injury No.3, which is the external injury, and injury

Nos.2 & 3, which are internal injuries, are sufficient to cause the

death of the deceased. He also stated that the said injuries can be

caused by a blunt object like stick, stone or rod. Ex.P.4 is the

postmortem report issued by him.

21. The inquest witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 & 10 deposed that inquest

over the dead body of the deceased was held in their presence and

they noticed injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.3 is the

inquest report which contained their signatures. It is also evident

from the said Ex.P.3 - inquest report that there are injuries on the

dead body of the deceased which resulted into his death. Therefore,

the evidence of P.W.5 coupled with Ex.P.4 - postmortem report and

evidence of the inquest witnesses - P.Ws.3 and 10 coupled with

Ex.P.3 - inquest report clinchingly proves that the deceased died on

account of the said multiple external and internal injuries that are

caused to him with a blunt object like stick or rod. Therefore,

prosecution has proved with acceptable legal evidence that the

deceased died on account of the said multiple external and internal

injuries sustained by him caused with a blunt object like a stick or 10 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

rod and that he succumbed to the said injuries. So, it is clearly

established that the deceased met with a homicidal death.

22. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the Doctor -

P.W.5 or the inquest witnesses P.Ws.3 & 10 to prove or establish

that it is not a case of homicidal death or that the death is not on

account of the injuries that are found on the body of the deceased.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant also did not seriously

dispute the fact that the deceased sustained multiple injuries as is

evident from the postmortem report, which is Ex.P.4 and the

evidence of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body

of the deceased and that the deceased died on account of the said

injuries sustained by him.

24. Therefore, the point is answered affirmatively in favour of the

prosecution holding that the deceased met with homicidal death.

POINT No.2:

25. Now the crucial question that arises for determination is

whether the accused caused the said injuries to the deceased and

whether he is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased or

not.

26. P.W.2 is an employee working in the Steel Plant. The fact that

he is an employee working in the Steel Plant is not disputed by the 11 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

defence as can be seen from his cross-examination. He categorically

deposed in his evidence that on 11.07.2012 at about 08:30 a.m.,

while he was going to attend his duty in the Steel Plant and when

he reached near P.P. Gate at the flyover bridge that he found the

deceased going on a cycle in front of him and at that time, he has

seen the accused attacking the deceased with M.O.1 - iron rod and

that the deceased fell down from the cycle. He further deposed that

when he went to rescue the deceased, who is being attacked by the

accused, that the accused also attacked him with the said rod and

he escaped and went and informed C.I.S.F Police, who are in the

Steel Plant.

27. He further deposed that when he came back along with

C.I.S.F Police to the place where the accused attacked the deceased

that the accused ran away after throwing away the rod and escaped

and thereafter, he and another person shifted the injured to the

Steel Plant General Hospital for treatment and later on, the injured

died while he was taking treatment.

28. Thus, P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the said incident, has

given a vivid account as to how the accused attacked the deceased

with iron rod and beat him and caused injuries to him and

thereafter has thrown away the iron rod at the scene of offence and

escaped. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit 12 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

his testimony given regarding the manner in which the accused

attacked the deceased with iron rod and caused injuries to him.

29. As already noticed supra, the fact that P.W.2 is an employee

working in the Steel Plant, is not disputed. Therefore, he is natural

witness to the incident. Except suggesting that the accused is not

the person who attacked the deceased and caused his death and

that P.W.2 is giving false evidence which is denied by P.W.2, nothing

was brought out in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony

given in this regard. P.W.2 is also an independent witness and he

has absolutely no necessity or reason to give any false evidence

against the accused. No enmity is also suggested to him with the

accused. Therefore, when he is an employee of the Steel Plant where

the offence took place and as he has no necessity to give false

evidence against the accused and as no motive or enmity is also

attributed to him to give any false evidence against the accused, the

evidence of P.W.2 can safely be believed in the given facts and

circumstances.

30. The said evidence of P.W.2 clinchingly proves that it is the

accused who has attacked the deceased with M.O.1 - rod and

caused the said injuries to him which resulted into his death. P.W.2

also stated that along with him another person by name Sudheer

was also present at that time. This Sudheer is also an employee of

the said Steel Plant and he was examined as P.W.3. He also stated 13 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

in his evidence that when he was standing near the P.P. gate of

Steel Plant on the date of offence that he found P.W.2 i.e., eye-

witness running hurriedly and thereafter, he found P.W.2 coming to

the scene of offence along with CISF police and he also accompanied

them to the scene of offence. He then stated that he found the

deceased on the ground and he also found the accused at the scene

of offence and he also stated that the accused has thrown away the

iron rod and escaped. P.W.1, who is the C.I.S.F Police brought by

P.W.2, also stated that P.W.2 came and informed him about the

incident that the accused is beating the deceased and that he

immediately came to the scene of offence along with P.W.2 and that

thereafter he lodged Ex.P.1 - report with Steel Plant police. P.W.4 is

also a constable of Steel Plant and he also stated that he reached

the scene of offence immediately after knowing about the incident

and he has seen one person with bleeding injuries on the ground at

the scene of offence and he further stated that he found the accused

throwing away the rod at the scene of offence and escaping. Thus

the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly establishes the presence of the

accused at the scene of offence.

31. The evidence of P.W.2 proves that the accused attacked the

deceased with iron rod and beat him and caused the said injuries

and evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 & 4, who reached the scene of offence

immediately, establishes that the accused was present there and 14 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

that he has thrown away the rod and escaped from the scene of

offence. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the

appellant that as there is no possibility for the accused, being a

stranger, to gain entry into the premises of the Steel Plant that he

cannot be held liable for committing murder of the deceased cannot

be countenanced. When the presence of the accused at the scene of

offence and when the act of the accused in causing injuries to the

deceased is established by direct evidence of eye-witness - P.W.2

and his presence is also established from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3

& 4, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that it is the accused

who has caused the said injuries to the deceased which resulted

into his death.

32. Therefore, considering the said evidence on record which is

trustworthy and cogent, the point is also answered affirmatively in

favour of the prosecution holding that the accused caused the said

injuries to the deceased which resulted into his death and that he is

responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.

POINT No.3:

33. In view of the findings recorded by us in point Nos.1 and 2, it

is found from the evidence on record that the deceased met with

homicidal death and that the accused caused the injuries to the

deceased which resulted into his death and that he is responsible

for his homicidal death.

                                        15                             CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                                Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

34. Now, in view of the defence taken by the accused that he was

suffering from unsound mind at the time of commission of the said

act and that he is not liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC,

it is now to be seen whether the accused was suffering from any

such severe mental ill-health at the time of committing the offence

and by reason of the said mental ill health, even if any, whether he

is incapable of knowing the nature of his acts committed by him so

as to hold that he has committed the said offence while he was of

unsound mind at that time. In order to appreciate the said

contention raised by the appellant, it is apposite to first have a look

into Section 84 IPC which reads thus:

"84. Act of a person of unsound mind.--

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."

35. Thus, as can be seen from the language employed in Section

84 IPC, in order to hold that a person was of unsound mind at the

time of committing the act or committing the offence, it has to be

invariably shown that at the time of doing the said act, he is in fact

suffering from unsoundness of mind and it must be further shown

invariably that on account of the said unsoundness of mind that he

is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing

what is either wrong or contrary to law. Evidence in this regard is

essential to prove that the accused was suffering from any such 16 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

severe mental ill-health and that he is of unsound mind at the time

of committing the offence and that he is incapable of knowing the

nature of the said act.

36. We have very carefully gone through the medical evidence

that was adduced in this case both by the prosecution and also the

accused. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the witnesses examined by the

prosecution in proof of the medical treatment given to the accused

after commission of the offence. P.W.11 is Dr. K.V.Ramireddy, an

Associate Professor in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. He

only deposed that Dr. K.Surekha, Gynecologist, called him and

informed about admission of the accused in the Hospital and he

advised her to give haloperidol 10 mg, which is a sedative injection,

to the patient and accordingly she gave the said sedative injection to

him. In the cross-examination, he stated that the said sedative

injection was given to the accused as he was violent. So, there is

nothing to indicate in the evidence of P.W.11 that the accused was

actually suffering from any mental ill-health or that he is of

unsound mind at that time. Mere giving a sedative injection as he

was looking violent by itself cannot be sufficient evidence to hold

that he was actually suffering from any such mental ill-health or

unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence.

37. The evidence of P.W.12, who is Dr. M. Vijay Gopal, Head of

the Department, Andhra Medical College, who worked as 17 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam, only shows that

he came to know that the accused was admitted in the Hospital on

14.07.2012 and that the Committee discussed regarding the status

of the accused and they kept him in the Hospital for treatment till

10.01.2013. So, there is nothing to indicate from the evidence of

this witness also that the accused was suffering from any such

serious mental illness or of unsound mind at the time of

commission of the offence. In the cross-examination, he stated that

Psychiatrist would examine the patient initially and confirm

whether the patient is a mentally retarded person or not.

38. Now it is relevant to see that the accused has examined D.W.1

as a defence witness. D.W.1 - Dr. Radha Rani is a professor of

Psychiatrics in Government Medical Hospital for Mental Care,

Visakhapatnam. She deposed that she gave treatment to the

accused when he was referred by III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Gajuwaka, on 13.07.2012 and that the accused was

under observation till 10.01.2013. She stated that there is

abnormality in the behaviour of the accused and as such they

started treatment. She also stated that as he has exhibited

aggressive behaviour with the co-prisoners on 15.01.2013 that he

was again brought to the Hospital and he was discharged on

06.03.2013. She stated that at the time of admission the patient

had aggressive behaviour with irritation and he is non-cooperative.

                                  18                          CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

39. So, even from the evidence of this witness, who treated him

after he was admitted in the Hospital, there is nothing to indicate

conclusively that he was suffering from any serious mental ill-

health or of unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the

offence and most importantly it is relevant to note that it is not

stated in specific terms by the Doctor i.e., D.W.1 that the accused is

incapable of knowing the nature of the things committed by him on

the date of offence on account of any such aggressive behaviour or

irritation which was found during the time of his treatment. No

doubt, in the cross-examination, she only stated that the accused

got acute mental illness and mild mental retardation. But in the

cross-examination also, she did not state that on account of the

said mental illness or the said mild mental retardation, the accused

is incapable of knowing the nature of things done by him at the time

of the offence. It is also important to note that in the cross-

examination she stated that the patient i.e., accused informed her

that he had a problem with a contractor by whom he was engaged.

40. It is well settled law that the mere fact that a person is

suffering from some sort of mental illness or a mild mental

retardation by itself cannot be a valid ground to hold that he was

actually suffering from unsoundness of mind and that he was

incapable of understanding the nature of things being done by him.

The accused cannot claim exoneration from his liability under 19 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

Section 84 IPC on such slender evidence of mild mental ill-health or

retardation.

41. It is significant to note in this case that there is absolutely no

evidence to show that the accused was suffering from any such

serious mental ill health or unsoundness of mind prior to the date

of offence. His family members would be the best persons to speak

whether he was suffering from any such serious mental ailment or

unsoundness of mind prior to the date of offence and

if so, from when. They are not examined in this case. The accused

examined only D.W.1 who treated him subsequent to the date of

offence. So, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the

accused was suffering from any mental ill health or unsoundness of

mind prior to the date of offence.

42. Almost in a similar nature of case, the Division Bench of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Balendra

Kasi Bhupathi Matchva Raju v. State of A.P.1 held at paras-47

and 49 as follows:

"47. In the instant case, there is no proof whatsoever regarding the earlier history of the accused, as to whether he was really suffering from any such noticeable mental ailment or not. Even if such mental ailment is not very conspicuous, still by virtue of the behavior, perhaps, the person can be identified as one suffering from mental disturbance. Even that is not spoken to by any of the witnesses or by the

1 (2007) 3 ALT (Cri) 327 20 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

Doctors or supported by any medical record, particularly about the conduct of the accused prior to the date of offence.

48. ... ... ... ... ...

49. Therefore, by virtue of the conduct of the accused, from the date of offence till he was admitted in the mental hospital, there is nothing on record as to his past history. Further, Paranoid Schizophrenia, as already discussed, requires several other things to be proved. Since the ailment is basically of mild form, severity of the said ailment ought to have been proved by the accused himself unlike in other cases."

43. Ultimately, the Division Bench did not accept the plea of

defence taken by the accused that he was suffering from

unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the offence and his

conviction under Section 302 of IPC was upheld.

44. The Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of

Madhya Pradesh2 held as follows:

"Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term „insanity‟ itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity."

2 (2008) 16 SCC 109 21 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

45. Again in another judgment, the Apex Court in the case of

Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand3 held as follows:

"11. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. The expression "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behavior or the behavior is queer are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Penal Code."

46. After considering the earlier aforesaid two judgments of the

Apex Court, the Supreme Court in the recent judgment rendered in

the case of Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa4 held at paras-4

and 5 of the judgment as follows:

"4. Section 84 of the IPC recognizes only an act which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words "nothing is an offence". The said words are a clear indication of the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the

3 (2011) 11 SCC 495 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 = 2023 LawSuit (SC) 86 22 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person should be incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission.

5. The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is a very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law."

47. Ultimately, the Apex Court thus held that the existence of

an unsound mind at the time of offence is a sine qua non to the

applicability of Section 84 of the IPC and mere unsound mind per se

would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the

nature of the act and the accused must be shown to have been

suffering from an unsound mind at the time of commission of the

said act. Further held that a mere medical insanity cannot be said

to mean unsoundness of mind and held that there may be a case

where a person suffering from medical insanity would have

committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to 23 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

attract the mandate of Section 84 of IPC and it must be shown that

the accused is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or to

understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law.

48. When such is the law relating to Section 84 of IPC, if the case

on hand is tested on the basis of the evidence available on record,

we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the accused has

miserably failed to prove that he was in fact suffering from any such

legal insanity having the effect of not knowing the nature of the act

as on the date of commission of the said act. At the cost of

repetition, it is to be held that the medical evidence at best only

shows that he was suffering from some mental aberration with

emotion and aggressive nature and that by itself is not sufficient to

hold that he was actually suffering from any such unsoundness of

mind or legal insanity to exonerate him from his liability of

committing the murder of a person and taking away the life of an

individual in this case.

49. In another case, the Apex Court in Sheralli Wali

Mohammed v. State of Maharastra5 held that to establish that

acts done were not offences under Section 84 IPC, it must be proved

that by reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of either

knowing the nature of the act or that the acts were either morally

wrong. As there was no evidence to show that at the time of

AIR 1972 SC 2442 24 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

commission of the act the accused was not in sound state of mind,

it cannot be held that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.

It is also held that the law presumes that every person of the age of

discretion to be sane unless contrary is proved. It is also held that

the mere fact that the appellant did not try to run away when the

door was open could not indicate that he was insane.

50. As per the facts of the above reported case, the accused

caused severe bleeding injuries to his wife and children with a

chopper. He was found standing at the dead body of his wife and

children with chopper in his hand after killing them and his clothes

were also strained with blood. The similar contention that as the

accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind that he has to be

let off under Section 84 IPC was taken. Considering the said

conduct, it was contended that normally a person, who committed

murder, would run away and escape and as he was found standing

with the dead bodies with the weapon that in view of the said

conduct, it must be held that he was suffering from unsoundness of

mind. The Apex Court did not accept the said contention and held

that he is liable for conviction under Section 302 IPC.

51. In the instant case, the evidence on record, as discussed

supra, clearly shows that after seeing the CISF police and P.W.2

reaching the scene of offence that the accused has thrown away the

iron rod and escaped. So from the said conduct of the accused 25 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

exhibited immediately after committing the offence, it cannot be

held that he is not in a position to know the nature of the things

committed by him. It clearly indicates that as he is aware of the fact

that he has committed an offence that he has thrown away the

weapon and ran away after seeing the CISF police. It clearly

indicates that he is capable of knowing the nature of things done by

him. So, it cannot be said that he is of unsound mind at the time of

committing the offence.

52. In another case decided in Mariappan v. State of Tamil

Nadu6, as per the facts of the said case, in fact the accused was

found suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was tried for

committing the offence of murder of his wife. Similar defence that as

he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia that he is not liable

for punishment for committing the murder of his wife was taken.

The Apex Court held that there is no evidence as to the

unsoundness of mind of the appellant at the time of occurrence

even though he was found to be suffering from paranoid

schizophrenia.

53. Therefore, the legal position is now clear that suffering from

some mental ill-health like paranoid schizophrenia or aggressive

nature or with irritation by itself cannot be a valid ground to

construe that it is an ailment of unsoundness of mind on account of

(2013) 12 SCC 270 26 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

which the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act

committed by him.

54. The burden to prove that he is suffering from unsoundness of

mind at the time of committing the offence and that he is incapable

of knowing the nature of act committed by him is on him under

Section 105 of the Evidence Act. No doubt, the said burden is not as

heavy as that of the prosecution to prove a case beyond all

reasonable doubt. The said burden can be discharged even by

showing preponderance of probabilities from the evidence that is

available on record.

55. After considering the evidence on record and subjecting the

same to strict judicial scrutiny, we have no hesitation to hold that

the accused either by way of direct evidence or by showing any

preponderance of probabilities from the material available on

record, has miserably failed to prove that he was in fact suffering

from any such severe mental ill-health of unsoundness of mind

which is of severe nature that the accused was incapable of

knowing the nature of things done by him as required under

Section 84 IPC. Various persons will have various temperaments.

Some people may be aggressive and some people may be of cool and

placid nature. Mere fact that the accused got some aggressive

nature or irritation that by itself is not sufficient to hold that he is

suffering from any unsoundness of mind. Therefore, the accused 27 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

has miserably failed to prove and establish that he was suffering

from any such serious mental ill-health or unsoundness of mind on

account of which he was incapable of knowing the nature of act

committed by him so as to claim benefit under Section 84 IPC to

absolve himself from his liability in committing the murder of the

deceased.

56. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

appellant in the case of Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa

(4 supra) is not applicable to the present facts of the case. The facts

of the case are clearly distinguishable.

57. Therefore, the point is answered against the accused and in

favour of the prosecution holding that the accused failed to prove

that he is suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of

commission of the offence.

58. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and

on proper appreciation of the same, arrived at a right conclusion

and recorded a finding of guilt against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly rightly convicted

him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment. The trial Court also held that the evidence of P.Ws.2

and 4 proves that when they reached the scene of offence, the

accused has thrown away the rod and escaped after seeing them,

which clearly indicates that he is not suffering from any mental ill-

                                   28                         CMR,J & TRR,J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

health and that he is incapable of knowing the nature of the act

that was done by him at para No.27 of his judgment. We are in

complete agreement with the said finding recorded by the trial

Court.

59. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants

no interference in this Appeal.

60. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant

that as the accused has no motive or mens rea in committing the

said act of murder that the sentence should be modified to under

Section 304 Part-II IPC is concerned, as rightly contended by

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, motive plays a significant role

in the cases rested on circumstantial evidence. But in the cases

based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses, motive loses its

significance and it cannot be held that it is not a case of murder for

want of motive. The present case, as held supra, is based on the

direct evidence of the eye-witness P.W.2 and other witnesses. The

evidence on record shows that the accused used M.O.1 an iron rod

as a weapon to cause injuries to the deceased, which is a lethal

weapon. He has indiscriminately beat the deceased with the said

lethal weapon causing multiple external and internal injuries. We

have already held that he failed to prove that he is incapable of

knowing the nature of the act committed by him. So when a person 29 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

has used a lethal weapon like iron rod and caused multiple injuries

with the said iron rod, which resulted into his death, it would

clearly amount to an offence of committing murder. The evidence of

the Doctor, who is P.W.5, also shows that the said injuries are

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore,

the said contention raised on behalf of the appellant is also hereby

rejected.

61. Ergo, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the

judgment of conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial Court.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 05.07.2023 DSV/AKN 30 CMR,J & TRR,J Crl.A.No.1255 of 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1255 of 2014

Date: 05-07-2023

DSV/AKN