RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal stands convicted in s. C. No. 355/2002 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Vellore , for offences under sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. For the former offence, he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the latter offence, he stands sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. THE sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal. Heard Mr. G. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. R. Elango, learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, at about 4. 00 p. m. on 24. 02. 2002, the accused murdered his mother by stabbing her on her stomach with a knife indiscriminately, resulting in her death and in the course of the same transaction, he caused an injury on P. W. 1 thereby punishable under sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. To substantiate their case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 besides marking Exs. P. 1 to P. 15 and M. Os. 1 to 6. THE defence marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 3. A Doctor was examined as Court Witness No. 1. Through the court witness, exs. C. 1 and C. 2 came to be marked. P. W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and sister of the accused. Her parents were working in the Government Hospital at vaniyambadi as scavengers. Her father retired two years prior to her mother, who is the deceased in this case. P. W. 1 was living with her parents. P. W. 2 was also living with them. On her mother retiring, her retirement benefits were settled. Out of that retirement benefits, she spent a sum of Rs. 65,500/- in purchasing a house in the name of P. W. 1, in which house only, she was living with her parents. THE accused was not married. However, he used to come to p. W. 1's house often and take money from his mother for his day-to-day expenses, including for food. P. W. 1 and her mother used to give money. However, whenever they don't give money, the accused used to pick up a quarrel with them. THE accused was also quarrelling with his mother for not giving him any share in the retirement benefits, which she got. At about 4. 00 p. m. on 24. 02. 2002 (occurrence day), P. W. 1 was inside the house along with her mother (since deceased ). THE accused called his mother and on being told by P. W. 1, her mother went out. Immediately, P. W. 1 heard her mother crying, which made her run out of the house. At that time, she noticed the accused stabbing her mother with a knife in her stomach and in the back. Her mother started bleeding and fell down. When P. W. 1 attempted to prevent the accused from further onslaught, she received an injury on her left hand. P. W. 1 shouted, which attracted the attention of the neighbours. THE accused, dropping the knife, ran away. M. O. 1 is the knife used by the accused. P. W. 1 took her mother to the Government hospital at Vaniyambadi, where, the Doctor, on examination, pronounced her dead. THEn she went to the police station, where she gave the complaint, in which she had put her signature. Ex. P. 1 is the said complaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant would primarily contend that the evidence of C. W. 1; Exs. C. 1 and C. 2 and Exs. D. 1 to d. 3 unerringly show that the appellant is suffering from split mind disorder namely, Schizophrenia and therefore when the occurrence is shown to have taken place, he was found to be suffering from the said mental disorder. If that is so, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code would come to the rescue of the appellant and if the benefit of that section is extended to the appellant, then he cannot be punished for having committed any offence, including the offence of murder. LEARNED counsel by taking us through the evidence of P. W. 1 when she was further cross examined on 4. 12. 2003 on being recalled, would submit that p. W. 1 had denied any knowledge about the crime and also admitted that the accused was suffering from a mental ailment even on the date of occurrence. He would also take us through the evidence of P. W. 4, which according to him, proves Exs. D. 1 to D. 3, to contend that the appellant was suffering from a mental disorder. Mr. N. R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in meeting the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Exs. D. 1 to D. 3 cannot be taken to be proved, in the absence of the author of those three documents. In other words, formal proof before court is necessary before Exs. D. 1 to D. 3 could be admitted and evaluated in evidence. LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor draws our attention to a statement made by the learned Sessions Judge in her judgment that the accused stated before her that he is mentally alright. Only in such circumstances, the learned Sessions judge after referring the accused for medical examination regarding his mental ailment proceeded to continue the trial. From the evidence of C. W. 1 and Exs. C. 1 and C. 2 it cannot be conclusively said that on the date of the crime, the accused was having a mental disorder. According to the learned Additional public Prosecutor, to get the benefit of Section 84, it must be shown by the accused that on the day, when the accused was shown to have committed the crime, due to mental unsoundness, he could not know what he was doing is either wrong or opposed to law. Of course it is open to the accused to show that prior to the day on which the crime was committed and subsequent to that day also he was afflicted with such mental disorder, so that the court would be in a position to evaluate his mental capacity. In this case, there is total absence of any medical evidence to support the defence of the accused built on section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Then referring to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4, when they were recalled and further cross examined on 4. 12. 2003, learned additional Public Prosecutor would state that those evidence have come on record after the examination of C. W. 1 in court. Under these circumstances no credibility at all could be given to such evidence.