GOVINDASWAMI PADAYACHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point taken before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he should have been given the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C. and acquitted.

(2.) IN order to comprehend the point taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, which was also urged in the lower Court, the following short facts are necessary. The appellant who is described by the learned Sessions Judge as aged about 16 and whom the record of the lower Court shows to be 18 had a bitter quarrel just preceding this occurrence with his mother, the deceased in this case, regarding the execution of a promissory note by his brother. Then this appellant asked his mother to serve him food. The Irritated mother told him that he should either serve himself or get his father who was in the fields to serve him. The accused thereupon in a fit of rage dragged his mother inside the hut, bolted the door and bashed his mother with a spade lying nearby. The cries of the mother attracted the people in the neighbourhood, and when they came, they found the door shut and bolted against them. Therefore, they asked the door to be opened and the accused did not open the door. Therefore, the neighbours started hammering on the door and threatened to batter it. The accused thereupon opened the door and came out. Subsequently when he was questioned, as he would be naturally questioned by the neighbours, he has been telling one and all that he killed his mother, because she repeatedly refused to serve him food. Then he has also pointed out to a relative the spade with which he had committed the fell deed. It is significant that when the accused was questioned by that relative and before he showed the spade, the accused was red with anger, showing clearly that with the repeated refusal of his mother he became enraged and committed the deed and his anger has not subsided even thereafter. The accused then finally told the people that the corpse might be shown to the elders of the village and then cremated, clearly recognising that it was not the normal mode of death and that an offence had been committed relating thereto and that therefore the elders of the village should adjudge before the corpse was given its last rites.

(3.) WE have been taken through the evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant and see no reason whatsoever to differ from the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of Section 84 should be given or not is the material time when the offence takes place. If at that moment a man is found to be labouring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of the act he was doing or that even if he knew of it he did not know it was either wrong or contrary to law, then we must apply Section 84. In coming to that conclusion, no doubt, we have to take into consideration the relevant circumstances like the behaviour of the accused before the commission of the offence and the behaviour of the accused after the commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge has applied all these tests and has come to the aforesaid conclusion; and the details set out above show that the accused knew full well that he was murdering his mother and that what he had done was a grave offence which was both wrong and contrary to law.