GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence for committing a murder. The appellant Raghavan Pillai Gopalakrishnan Nair (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Trivandrum for the Commission of an offence of murder, punishable under S.301, Travancore Penal Code, in that he caused the death of one Jacob P. John, then a student of the junior Intermediate Class of the Intermediate College, Trivandrum, by a brutal attack on him with a pen knife on the morning of 17.2.1950 when the said John was proceeding to the College along the main road in front of the accused's house. The occurrence was at about 9.15 A.M. and John sustained not less than seven incised wounds. As a result of those injuries he died at 2 P.M. on the same day while under treatment in the Trivandrum General Hospital. The learned Judge held the trial with the aid of four assessors and three of them were of the opinion that the accused was not guilty. In legal parlance their opinion was that he was 'Guilty but insane'. The other assessor took the contrary view that the plea of insanity was not proved and that the accused was guilty of murder. The learned Judge agreed with the minority opinion, found the accused guilty of murder punishable under S.301 of the Travancore Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has summarised the prosecution case as follows in the opening paragraph of his judgment:-

(3.) Before the Committing Magistrate's Court as also at the Sessions trial the accused stated that he had not committed any offence. At the trial he added he did not remember what happened. The plea raised on his behalf both before the Trial Court and in the appeal before us was that by reason of unsoundness of mind the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he was committing or that it was either wrong or contrary to law. In other words he pleaded the exception recognised by S.73 of the Travancore Penal Code corresponding to S.84 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge after elaborately discussing the evidence repelled the contention. It is for us now to examine whether the learned Judge's conclusion about it is wrong.