ALEX MARTIN FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the original accused is directed against the judgment. Dated 21st January, 1988, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Panjim, convicted him under section 302, Indian Penal Code and then, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo a further period of one year of imprisonment.

(2.) The appellant was charged with the murder of his own wife Flory Fernandes, on the grounds that during the night of 25 to 26 May, 1987, he stabbed her to death in his own residential house. The appellant admitted having stabbed his wife but sought to justify his conduct by saying that the deceased was having illicit relations with other men and that even in his own presence, she used to speak to other men in a manner that was bound to create doubts about her fidelity. The learned Sessions Judge however, after examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the charge has been duly proved and consequently, convicted the appellant under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

(3.) The appellant challenges his conviction and consequent sentence passed against him, mainly, on two grounds, viz. (a) that he was not of sound mind at the relevant time of the offence, and therefore, was unable to know that he was doing or the consequences of his acts; and (b) that in any event, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have appointed an advocate in order to enable him to defend himself in a proper and effective manner. Elaborati no the above grounds of challenge, Mr. Palha, the learned Counsel appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme to defend the appellant, submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the appellant was not of sound mind at the relevant time of the offence, and taking us through the impugned judgment, further contended that the learned Sessions Judge having correctly found that the appellant was under the obsession, although without sound basis, that his wife was misbehaving and was unfaithful to him, ought to have given him the benefit of the Exception of section 84, Penal Code, as it indicates that the appellant committed the fatal assault due to jealousy and in this state of mind, he did not know what he was doing and its consequences. Mr. Palha next contended that in any event, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have appointed an advocate to defend the appellant inspite of his declining to have an advocate appointed by the Court.