NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Narayanan has been convicted by the additional Sessions Judge of Parur of the offence of murder for having on the morning of 22-4-64 stabbed and caused the death of one Manicka Shenoi and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. THE incident took place in front of one Rajeswari Hotel near the Perumbavoor bus stand on the Alwaye-Munnar road. Pw. 4 a boy met the accused that morning in front of the hotel. P. W. 4 knew the accused before and wanted the accused to purchase tea for him, but the accused excused himself by saying that he had no money-THEn Pw. 4 offered to give him tea and took him to the hotel. After getting inside the hotel the accused soon got out saying that he did not want tea. He then stood in front of the hotel. It was at that time that the deceased shenoi came out of the Rajeswari Hotel. As soon as he came the accused stabbed him on the right side of his neck from behind with a dagger M. O. 1. THE accused then ran away with the weapon in his hand. Pw. 1 a police constable on duty at the bus stand seeing this pursued and arrested him a few yards away and took the knife from him. THE accused was then brought to the scene of occurrence and along with the injured was taken to the Perumbavoor police station and produced before the Sub Inspector of police Pw. 17. THE injured was unable to speak and & statement was recorded from Pw. 1 and a case was registered. Pw. 2 an agent of a transport bus who was present in front of the hotel also witnessed the accused stabbing and running away from the scene and Pw. 1 phasing and arresting him. Pw. 3 a betelnut shop keeper near the hotel heard the cry 'ayo' and came out from inside his shop and saw the accused running away with the weapon in his hand. He saw the deceased pressing his wound and saying that he had been stabbed, and witnessed the arrest of the accused by Pw. 1 and taking him and the deceased to the police station. Pw. 4 also saw the accused running away from the scene and Pw. 1 running after him and arresting him. We have been taken through the evidence, of these witnesses and find no, reason to doubt the truth of their evidence. On the evidence of these, witnesses, it is conclusively established that it was the accused who had inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased. This fact has not been challenged by the defences. THE evidence of the two medical officers Pws. 5 & 6 unmistakably show that the deceased sustained a neck injury, that it had cut open the jugular vein and that death was the direct result of the injury.

(3.) BEARING these principles in mind let us see the facts of this case. Learned counsel referred to the want of any understandable motive for the accused to have committed the offence as a circumstance indicative of insanity. In Ext. P-7 dying declaration of Shenoi recorded by the Sub magistrate Pw. 12 the deceased has referred to the repair of his oil engine by the accused some time before. The investigating officer probably was not able to gather any evidence regarding any enmity but the mere fact that an act is without any apparent motive is not by itself sufficient to establish insanity. When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime.