REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1250 OF 2006
Elavarasan …Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras whereby Criminal Appeal No.1215 of 2003 has been dismissed and the conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to him for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 342 of the I.P.C. upheld.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was residing in a house situate at Yadwal Street, Poovam Koticherri, Distt. Karaikal, Tamil Nadu. Apart from his wife Smt. Dhanalakshmi, PW2 and his daughter Abirami, aged about 1½ years, his mother Smt. Valli, PW3 also lived with him. On the fateful night intervening 11-12 of December, 2000 at about 1 p.m. the appellant is alleged to have started a quarrel with his wife accusing her of having brought misfortune to him ever since she got married to him. The immediate provocation for making that accusation was his inability to sell the property owned by his mother, as the Revenue entries relating the same stood in the name of Kannan, the paternal uncle of the appellant, who it appears was not agreeable to the sale of the property. The quarrel between the husband and the wife took an ugly turn when the appellant made a murderous assault on his wife, Dhanalakshmi causing several injuries to her including those on her head, left hand, right cheek and other parts of the body. Intervention of PW3, Vali who is none other than the mother of the appellant also did not stop the appellant from assaulting his wife. In the process injuries were caused even to the mother. Due to the ruckus caused by the quarrel and the assault on the two women, Abirami who was sleeping in the adjacent room woke up and started crying. The appellant at that stage is alleged to have gone inside the room and hit the deceased resulting in her death.
3. The prosecution case further is that the appellant did not allow the injured to go out of the house and bolted the doors from inside. In the morning at about 7 a.m. Shri R. Parvathi, PW5 is said to have gone to the house of R. Natarajan, PW1 - a resident of the same street in the village and told him about the quarrel at the house of the appellant the previous night. Both of them then came to the spot and found a pool of blood near the outer door of the house of the appellant. Since the door was bolted from inside, PW1 called the appellant by his name, who responded to the call and said that he had cut his mother and wife and wanted to commit suicide for which he demanded some poison from them. A large number of villagers in the meantime gathered on the spot but the appellant refused to open the door. The Police was informed about the incident on telephone and soon arrived at the spot to knock at the doors of the appellant’s house asking him to open the same. The appellant refused to do so and threatened that he would murder anyone who ventured to enter the house. Since the appellant remained adamant in this resolve, the Police with the help of PWs 1, 8 and others forced the door open and found the appellant inside the house armed with an Aruval, and his mother and wife lying inside the house with serious cut injuries and blood all over the place. In the adjacent room they found Abirami in an injured condition. Not knowing whether she was dead or alive, she was picked up and rushed to the hospital alongwith the other two injured, where the doctor pronounced the child brought dead. On completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 342, 307 (2 counts) and 302 IPC. He was committed to the sessions at Karaikal where the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
4. Before the Trial Court the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case while the accused-appellant who set up unsoundness of mind in defence did not lead any evidence except making a request for medical examination which request was allowed and Dr. R. Chandrasekaran and Dr. P. Srinivasan who examined the appellant summoned as court witnesses to depose about their observations and conclusions as regards the mental health of the appellant.
5. The Trial court eventually rejected the plea of insanity and found the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of his child baby Abirami and to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and 10 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences punishable under Section 307 (2 counts). The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Madras, who dismissed the same and affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court as already noticed by us. The High Court held that the appellant had been caught red handed with the weapon of offence inside the house in the presence of PWs 1, 7, 8 and others. Besides, there was no reason why his wife PW2, who was an injured eye-witness to the entire incident, should have falsely implicated the appellant. The High Court also took the view that since PW3, the mother of the appellant who had also been injured in the incident had turned hostile and stated that she had sustained the injuries accidently because of a fall, the appellant’s conviction for the attempted murder of his mother punishable under Section 307 was liable to be set aside. The fact that PW3 had turned hostile did not, opined the High Court, make any dent in the prosecution case in so far as the same related to the murder of the innocent child and an attempt made by the appellant on the life of his wife Dhanalakshmi. The plea of insanity was rejected by the High Court on the ground that there was no material to show that the appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the offences. The present appeal assails the correctness of the above judgment and order as already noticed by us.
7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Mani, learned counsel urged a solitary point in support of the appeal. He submitted that the material on record sufficiently proved the plea of insanity set up by the appellant at the trial. Reliance in support was placed by the learned counsel upon the deposition of Dr. P. Srinivasan, CW1, according to whom the appellant was a person of unsound mind. He also drew our attention to the deposition of other witnesses to argue that the appellant had been treated by a Psychiatrist and had been taking medicines for his illness. Reliance in particular was placed by the learned counsel upon the contents of Ex.P.3 the observation Mahazar which refers to certain writings on the walls of the appellant’s house suggesting that the appellant was mentally unsound even at the time of commission of crime. From the graffiti, it was according to Mr. Mani evident that the appellant suffered from insanity before and at the time of the incident. Mr. Mani further argued that murderous assault on his wife, his mother and child without any ostensible reason was itself suggestive of the appellant being an insane person. The appellant’s conduct after the event was also, argued Mr. Mani, suggestive of his being of unsound mind, which aspects the courts below had failed to appreciate in the process denying to the appellant the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, legitimately due to him.
8. On behalf of the respondent Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel contended that the trial court as also the High Court had correctly found the plea of insanity set up by the appellant as not proved and held the appellant guilty of the offences with which he stood charged. Mr. Ventakaramani argued that there was no credible evidence to establish legal insanity at the time of the commission of the offence so as to entitle the appellant to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. The fact that the appellant did not run away from the place of occurrence or that he had attacked his wife and child without any reason did not establish that the appellant was of unsound mind, hence unable to understand the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Reliance was placed by Mr. Venkatarmani upon the deposition of CW2 Dr. R. Chandrasekaran in support of his submission that the appellant was not an insane person at the time of the incident or at the time he was tried for the offences committed by him.
9. There was before the courts below and even before us no challenge to the factual narrative given by the prosecution and the witnesses examined on its behalf. That the appellant lived with his mother, wife and minor child in the house owned by him was not disputed. That he assaulted his wife, who was in family way and caused several injuries to her and to his mother who intervened to save the former is also not in dispute. That injuries were caused even to Abirami who succumbed to the same was also not challenged before us by Mr. Mani. The appellant’s mother PW3, no doubt turned hostile at the trial and tried to attribute the injuries sustained by her to a fall in the house, but the deposition of PW2, the wife of the appellant completely supported the prosecution case and the sequence of events leading to the heartless killing of the innocent child Abirami, who was sleeping in the adjacent room and whose only fault was that she woke up hearing the shrieks and wails of the mother and started crying. That the appellant was arrested from the house from where the injured witnesses PW2 and PW3 and Abirami were removed in an injured condition, was also not disputed. Even independent of the line of arguments adopted by the learned counsel, we are satisfied that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the deposition of Dhanalakshmi, PW2 who unlike Abirami not only suffered the murderous assault but survived to tell the tale in all its details that leave no room for any doubt in our mind about her version being completely reliable. That Shri R. Natarajan, PW1 and Shri J. Ashokan, PW8 also support and corroborate the version of PW2, Dhanalakshmi, only goes to show that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who attacked not only his wife but his daughter of tender age resulting in the death of the later. Superadded to the above is the depositions of PW19, Dr. Ramamurthy, who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Abirami and who proved the post-mortem report marked as Ex.P.25 enumerating the injuries found on the body of the unfortunate child. The doctor opined that death was due to coma as a result of head injuries within 24 to 36 hours prior to post-mortem and that the blunt side of a weapon like M.O.27 could have caused the injuries found on the dead body.
10. Similarly, the deposition of PW16, Dr. Anni Pula Juilet who was posted as Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital at Karaikal proved the injury report marked Ex.P19 that listed the injuries sustained by Dhanalakshmi, PW2, as under:
(1) Injury of 3 cms. x 3 cms. Right side of leg.
(2) Injury of 3 cms. x 3 cms. Lt. side of elbow.
(3) Injury on left side of forearm of 7 cms. x 7 cm. Suspected fracture on it. Forearm.
(4) Injury Lt. side of hand 3 cms. x 3 cms.
(5) Injury Lt. Side of hand 3 cms. x 3 cms.
(6) Injury on the palm.
(7) Injury all the fingers.
(8) Injury chest 4 cms. x 4 cms.
(9) 24 weeks foetus.
(10) Injury face angle from Lt. Side measuring 7 cms. X 7 cms.
(11) Injury scale back side of 8 cms. x 8 cms.
(12) Deep cut on the scale 10 cms. x 12 cms. Deep cut extending to the back 3 cms. x 3 cms.
(13) Abrasion frontal side of scalp.
(14) Injury Rt. Side of the hand. Lacerated injury Rt. Index finger extending bone.
(15) Deep cut injury on the scalp 6 cms. x 6 cms.
11. Injuries found on the person of PW3, the mother of the
appellant were described in Ex.P20 proved by the same
witness, as under:
(1) Cut injury Lt. Side of forearm hand.
(2) Cut injury Rt. Side of hand near the Wrist 7 cms. x 6 cms.
(3) Deep cut injury on the forehead 5 cms. x 5 cms. Lt. Side above ridge bone.
(4) Deep cut injury Lt. Side of forearm 7 cms. x 7 cmx. near wrist.
(5) Deep cut injury on the Lt. Side of forearm 5 cms. x 5 cms.
(6) Deep cut injury on the scalp exposing the bones about 16 cms. x 16 cms.
12. PW15, Dr. Shriramulu, was the Assistant Surgeon in the General Hospital at Karaikal who found 15 injuries on the person of PW2, stated that PW2 remained admitted to the hospital from 12th December, 2000 till 28th January, 2001. According to him the appellant’s mother PW3 had also suffered six injuries and her little and index fingers in the right hand had been amputated in the course of treatment on 8th January, 2001.
13. In the light of the above evidence and in the absence of any challenge to the veracity of the witnesses produced by the prosecution we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the appellant alone was responsible for the assault on his wife PW2, Dhanlakshmi and baby Abrami who lost her life as a result of the injuries sustained by her in the said incident. Left at that there can be no escape from the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of committing culpable homicide of his daughter Abirami aged about 1½ year and an attempt to commit the murder of his wife Dhanlakshmi, even if the assault on the mother of the appellant is taken as doubtful on account of the injured turning hostile at the trial and attempting to attribute the injuries sustained by her to a fall.
14. The question, however, is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code which 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 who is incapable of knowing that what he is doing, is either wrong or contrary to law. Before adverting to the evidence on record as regards the plea of insanity set up by the appellant, we consider it necessary to refer to two aspects that bear relevance to cases where a plea of insanity is raised in defence by a person accused of a crime. The first aspect concerns the burden of proving the existence of circumstances that would bring the case within the purview of Section 84 of the I.P.C. It is trite that the burden of proving the commission of an offence is always on the prosecution and that the same never shifts. Equally well settled is the proposition that if intention is an essential ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused the prosecution must establish that ingredient also. There is no gainsaying that intention or the state of mind of a person is ordinarily inferred from the circumstances of the case. This implies that, if a person deliberately assaults another and causes an injury to him then depending upon the weapon used and the part of the body on which it is struck, it would be reasonable to assume that the accused had the intention to cause the kind of injury which he inflicted. Having said that, Section 84 can be invoked by the accused for nullifying the effect of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He can do so by proving that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. But what is important is that the burden of bringing his/her case under Section 84 of the IPC lies squarely upon the person claiming the benefit of that provision. Section 105 of the Evidence Act is in this regard relevant and may be extracted:
“105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.-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, (45 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.”
Check the Attached file for Full Judgment
