MACHI PARVAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Machi Parvaiah, the appellant herein, was tried in Sessions Case No. 10/1983 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad on the charge that he committed the murder of his mother Bhumavva (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted him under S. 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The facts urged by the prosecution in support of its case against the accused-appellant lie in a narrow compass. On 23-9-1982 at about 2 p.m., the accused returned from outside to his hut with an axe in his hand. His sister, Agavva, and the deceased, his mother, were in the kitchen speaking to each other. The accused gave a beedi to the deceased to light it and when the deceased bent into the oven to light the beedi, the accused cut the deceaseds neck with his axe, as a result of which the deceased died instantaneously. Indeed, we are relieved of the need to examine any evidence as the learned counsel appearing for the accused, Sri Bhagiratha Rao, fairly conceded the above act of the accused which caused the death of the deceased. Learned counsel, however, put up the plea that the act committed by the accused cannot be regarded as an offence under the Penal Code as it fell under S. 84 of the Penal Code. According to the learned counsel, the accused was of unsound mind and suffering from a fit of insanity and imbalance of mind and therefore he committed the act. Learned counsel relied on the following circumstances in support of his plea of insanity. (a) There is absolutely no motive for the accused to kill his mother. The evidence of P.W. 2 (the daughter of the deceased and the accuseds sister) and also of P.W. 3 (husband of P.W. 2) clearly showed that the accused and the deceased were on cordial terms and never quarrelled nor were there any disputes between the two. (b) After committing the act, the accused did not abscond from-the scene of offence and did not also try to conceal himself or the weapon with which he killed the deceased. (c) The accused remained at the scene of offence and started weeping along with his sister that his mother died. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 testified to this fact. (d) P.Ws. 2 and 3 stated before the investigating officers and also before the Magistrate who recorded the statements under S. 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused was under the influence of evil spirits and behaving disorderly since two years before the date of offence. Before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, P.W. 2 stated that the deceased was behaving as if someone practised black magic on him and that the accused was shown to some "magicians" but that there was no relief. P.W. 3. also stated that since two years the accused was under the influence of witchcraft and behaving disorderly. Although the accused got treatment at Yellareddy and other places, it was in vain. (e) The act of the accused in killing the mother whom he had regarded with affection and without any motive speaks for itself in the sense that the accused acted in an extremely unusual manner and his extraordinary conduct and behaviour in committing the act and in sitting at the scene of offence weeping indicated that the act was committed by the accused at a time when he was of unsound mind.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the above plea of the accused. It is contended that just because there was no motive and the accused did not abscond from the scene of offence, it does not automatically follow that accused was of unsound mind when he committed the act. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the conduct and behaviour of the accused preceding, attending and following the commission of the offence supported the claim that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act by reason of unsoundness of mind and he did not know what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.