AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhusudhan Rao, J.—The sale accused in Sessions Case No. 60 of 74 on the file of the Cuddapah Sessions Division is the appellant herein. He was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on a charge of having intentionally caused the death of one syed Raja the Sahab at about 3-30 a.m. on 27-12-1971. The facts of the prosecution case are in a narrow compass. Syed Raja Sahab, (who will hereinafter be referred to as the deceased) was a resident of Masapet in Cuddapah town. He was seeking out his livelihood by sharpening cutting instruments and selling grinding stones. He was going about various villages in the vicinity of Cuddapah in the course of his profession. On 26-12-1971, the deceased went to the village of Chennur. The accused, Shaik Imam Sahab alias Kale is a resident of Chennur. He was working as a Hamali and water carrier.
At about 3.30 a.m. on 27-12-1971 while the deceased was lying on the varandah of a cloth shop belonging to one Darisa Venkateshwarlu in Chennur, the accused requested him to give him a beedi. The deceased abused the accused and did not, however, give the beedi. The accused thereupon removed the peg from a nearby cart and struck the deceased with the cart-peg on the head. The deceased cried ''Amma'' K. Raghava Raju ARP Constable (PW1) who was patroling the area, heard the cry and rushed to the place. Bala subbanna ARL and Naick (PW2) also heard the cry and rushed to the place. The accused was beating the deceased with the cart-peg in his hand. On seeing P.Ws. 1 and 2, the accused took to heels. PWs. 1 and 2 chased and caught the accused near his house with the cart-peg in his hand. They brought the accused to the place where the deceased was beaten. They found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood on the varandah. One Jahadullah (P.W. 3) has a beedi bunk near to scene of occurrence. On hearing the commotion, he woke up and switched on the light in his bunk. He saw Police constables including the AR Sub-Inspector (PW. 4) proceeding by the side of his bunk saying that the accused beat a person and that person died. He followed the party and found the deceased lying dead with bleeding injuries on the varandah of the cloth shop of Darisa Venkateswarlu. The A.R. Sub-Inspector (P.W. 4) and others took the accused to the Police Station where a case of murder was registered against the accused by the SI of Police, Chennur (PW 12) on the basis of a report (Ex.P.1) given by P.W. 1. During the investigation, the Medical Officer (P.W. 6) conducted post-mortum examination over the dead body of the deceased and found eight injuries which might have been caused with a cart-peg. The Medical Officer opined that of the eight injuries, three were fatal and that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injuries.
On a requisition by the Investigating officer, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddapah (P.W.5) recorded a confession from the accused on 5-1-1972 and certified that it was voluntary. After completion of the investigation by the sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 12) and verification of the investigation by the Inspector of Police (P.W. 13) a charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
The plea of the accused was one of denial.
In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses of whom PWs 1 and 2 figured as direct witnesses to the occurence. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate, who recorded confession of the accused under Ex. P.4 has been examined as PW 3
The accused examined two witnesses to prove that he was a mad person. DW 1 is the accused''s brother, while DW 2 is a clerk of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court, Cuddapah.
On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution to the effect that the accused caused fatal injuries to the deceased. He had also held that the plea or insanity set up by the accused through D Ws 1 and 2 is not worthy of belief. Accordingly, he convicted the accused under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for life.
Sri G. Sriramarao, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contends that even though there can be no doubt of the accused being the person responsible for the fatal injuries of the deceased, the conviction of the accused is unsustainable in so far as there is sufficient material to show that the accused was an insane person. In support of this submission, he has drawn our attention to the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 and D Ws 1 tad 2.
A part from the concession of the accused''s learned counsel, on an examination of the evidence of P Ws 1 and 2 of the Magistrate (PW 5) who are disinterested and who have no oil-will of any kind against the accused, Share can be no doubt that it is the accused and the accused alone who in fluted the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased in the small hours of 27-12-1971. The accused was caught red-handed and produced at the police station soon after the occurrence. The version of P.W. 1 during the trial is in substantial accord with his earliest version in Ex.P.1 which was given at the police station without any avoidable delay.
The evidence of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate (P.W.5) shows that he took all the necessary precautions to ensure voluntariness for the confession made by the accused before him. The facts stated by the accused in the confession are clear, and though it is retracted, it is corroborated in material particulars not only in regard to the crime but also in regard to the particulars connecting the accused with the crime.
The only question that requires to be decided in this appeal is whether the accused is entitled to be acquitted on the ground of insanity.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :
nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
The burden of proving the ingredients of section 84 of the Penal Code is unquestionably on the person who sets up the plea of unsoundness of mind in so far as the law presumes that every person is same. Unless rebutted the presumption applicable in the case of all persons except in the case of a doli incapax under seven years of age. Though the burden of the rebuttal of the presumption of sanity and proof of insanity is squarely on the person who sets up the plea of insanity, it is well-settled that the burden can be discharged as if in a civil case by proof of facts and circumstances which merely probabilise the plea and the burden is not as heavy as that of the prosecution in a criminal trial. It should, however, be remembered that the unsoundness of mind to be proved is not the unsoundness before the commission of the offence or after the commission of the offence. What has to be proved is that at the time of doing the offensive act, the preparatory of the act was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or was incapable of knowing that what he was doing is either wrong or contrary to law and such incapability was by reason of the unsoundness of his mind. In a generality of cases it may not be possible to prove unsoundness of mind at the exact time of the commission of the act. In order to see whether the accused person was insane at the time of the commission of the offence, it may be relevant to consider the state of such person''s mind immediately preceding the commission of the offence and also subsequent to the commission of the offence. The evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 referred to, by the appellant''s learned Counsel does not enable a reasonable inference of the accused being insane at the time of the commission of the offence.
What all the Magistrate (P.W. 5) has stated in his cross-examination is. "The accused appeared to me of unsteady mind and I had made a note to that effect in the certificate, Ex. B.4 appended to Ex. P. 3 at page 13. His mode of replies to my questions and his demanour gave me to understand that he was of unsteady mind". The Magistrate has clearly stated In his evidence :" In my opinion the confession made by the accused is voluntary, I appended the certificate, Ex. B-4 to that effect". Merely appearing to be of an unsteady mind on 4-1-1972 and 5-1-1972 when the accused made his confessional statement before the Magistrate in regard to the occurrence which took place on 27-12-1971 cannot be a ground to hold that the accused was insane at the tints of the commission of the offence. Every minor mental abervation or circumstance indicating unsteadiness or instability of mind cannot constitute legal insanity so as to exempt the offender from criminal liability. There can be no legal insanity unless the Court is satisfied that the congnitive facultive of the mind were destroyed to such an extent that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the offensive act.
The evidence of P.W. 7 in his cross-examination to the effect that the accused was wandering as an in same person does not commend itself to us as a true. He being a resident of Chennuru, appears to be interested in the accused at the instance of the accused''s brother (D.W. 1). In the light of the evidence of the sub-Inspector (P.W. 12) and other circumstances which we will presently refer to, we have no hesitation to held that P. W.7 is trying to soft-pedal the case in favour of the accused by his evidence in the cross-examination. D.W. 1 the brother of the accused spoke to several facts which, if true, would show that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence. We are, however, unable to place any reliance on the interested testimony of D.W. 11. The various facts spoken to by D.W. 1 so as to show that the accused was insane are such that several disinterested persons could have spoken to those facts, if only they are true. No disinterested witness has come forward to corroborate D.W. 1 and even P.W. 7 did not speak to any of the alleged anterior insane acts of the accused. The evidence of D.W. 2 is not of any help to the accused. What all he says is that while under remand in connection with the trial of this case, the accused was sent to a mental hospital and the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital reported after some time that the accused was in a fit state of mind to take his trial.
Sri G. Sreeramarao, vehemently contends that the motive for the offence in trivial and that no sane person would commit a murder merely because he was abused when he requested for a beedi. No doubt, according to the confession of the accused, he beat the deceased to death as the deceased absused him when he requested the deceased to give him a beedi. We are, however, unable to hold that merely because the cause is trivial the accused should be deemed to have acted in a fit of insanity. Different men react to the same situation differently. There can be no hard and fast rule for temperamental reactions. It would not be possible nor reasonable for the courts to make an arithmetical calculation of proportion between motive and offence. Some persons do not commit even the slightest effeuce despite the gravest provocation. Some others commit even the gravest of climes on the slightest provocation. How a person reacts to a particular provocation is a matter which depends mostly on his mental discipline or depraviry. Human behaviour or temperamental reactions cannot be the same in all individuals. Mere short temper or impulsive irritability or the mere eccentricity or singularity in behaviour cannot by itself consltute a valid basis to conclude insanity. The Sub-Inspector (PW 12) deposed: ''I was seeing the accused everyday and he used to attend to his normal work as Hamali and also as a water carrier''. It is clear from the confession of the accused that he lost his temper on being abused by the deceased, and in a fit of anger he removed a heavy cart-peg from a nearby cart and strick the deceased violently with it. The medical evidence shows that he dealt eight blows including on a vital part of the body like the head. Three of the injuries inflicted on the head were each sufficient to cause death. The evidence of P Ws 1 and 2 shows that when they rushed to the scene on hearing the Cries of the deceased the accused stopped beating and took to heels. He tried to escape by running away towards his house where he could hide himself safely PWs 1 and 2 had to chase the accused and they could catch him only near his house. This conduct of the accused unmistakably indicates that the accused was in full possession of his senses when he made the fatal attack on the deceased. Under these circumstances, we find that the conviction of the accused under sec. 302 IPC is correct and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him does not at all for any interference. The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.