Subbiah @ Pichai vs The State

Thangamani, J.—Appeal against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life passed under S. 302 I.P.C.

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.1.1985 at about 5.30 p.m. in the village Kolla Veeranpatti, the appellant Subbaiah @ Pichai

committed the murder of his wife Konduthai by cutting her neck, nose, shoulder and hands with an Aruval. The appellant pleaded guilty to the

charge framed against him under S. 302, I.P.C.

The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, filed 16 Exhibits and marked 11 M.Os. to substantiate the charge. The evidence discloses that the

appellant is a resident of Kollaveeranpatti. He resides there with his wife and children. P.W.2 Ganesan, P.W.5 Nanavathi, and P.W.6 Ponraj are

put up in different portions of the same house where the appellant is living. P.W.5 Nanavathi is the wife of P.W.6 Ponraj. P.W.7 Ramu runs a petty

shop in that village. The appellant suspected that there was illicit intimacy between the said Ramu and his wife. He Warned P.W.7 Ramu not to

vend provisions to his wife. On 29.1.1985 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.2 Ganesan, P.W.5 Nanavathi and P.W.6 Ponraj heard the crying noise of

deceased Konduthai. P.W.6. Ponraj peeped out of his house and saw the appellant cutting his wife with M.O.1 Aruval thrice. P.W.2 Ganesan

saw the father of the appellant coming out from his house. P.W.5 Nanavathi also heard the noise of the appellant''s father pleading him not to cut.

This witness saw the appellant cutting his wife and coming out of the house. All the three went and saw the head of Konduthai severed from her

body. There was nobody else in the house. The villagers gathered there, caught hold of the appellant and tied him to a post near by. Meanwhile,

P.W.1 V.A.O. who was proceeding to his village from the office came to know about the occurrence and reached Kollaveeranpatti. He found the

appellant tied to a post. The appellant confessed before him that he had cut and murdered his wife. The V.A.O. went inside the house of the

appellant and saw the severed head and body of the deceased. He wrote Ex.P1 complaint and sent it to the Police Station through the village

vettiyan.

At about 9.00 p.m. on that day P.W.9 Sub Inspector received Ex.P1 complaint and registered the same in his Station Cr. No. 10/85 under

S.302 I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P14 printed F.I.R and sent both the documents to court and sent message to the Inspector.

At 9.30 p.m. P.W.10 Inspector came to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P15 rough sketch. He

seized M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.2 blood stained earth, M.O.3 sample earth, M.Os.4 to 7 vessels from there under Ex.P3 mahazar. From 11.00 p.m.

to 2.00 a.m. on the next day, he held inquest over the dead body of Konduthai. Ex.P16 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined

P.W.2 Ganesan and P.W.6 Ponraj. He sent the dead body for post mortem through the constable. At 2.00 a.m. on 30.1.85, he arrested the

appellant and seized M.O.8 dhoti from him under Ex.P4 mahazar. P.W.1 V.A.O. attested Exs.P2 to P4.

At 12.30 p.m. on 30.1.85, on receipt of Ex.P5 requisition from the Inspector, P.W.3 Doctor conducted the autopsy over the dead body of

Konduthai. He found that the head was severed completely and removed from the trunk at the level of the lower part of the neck. The left hand

was also completely severed at the level of left wrist, by incised wound. Besides, there were four more incised wounds. In his opinion, the

deceased had died of neck injuries causing separation of head from the body and death would have occurred 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.

Ex.P6 is the post mortem certificate issued by him. All the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 Aruval.

On 31.1.1985 at 2.00 p.m., P.W.10 Inspector received M.O.9 saree, M.O.10 blouse and M.O.11 skirt from the post mortem constable. On

6.2.1985, on receipt of Ex.P10 requisition to the Magistrate from the Inspector, P.W.8 Headclerk of the J.S.C.M. Court caused blood stained

articles to be sent for chemical examination, under the original of Ex.P11 covering letter, Exs.P12 and P13 are the reports of the chemical examiner

and serologist.

Pursuant to Ex.P7 requisition from the Inspector, on 13.2.1985 at 3.00 p.m. P.W.4 J.S.C.M. Karur recorded the confession statement of the

appellant under S.164 Cr.P.C. after observing the necessary formalities and after being satisfied that the appellant was voluntarily willing to give the

same. Exs.P8 and P9 are his proceedings containing the statement of the appellant.

On completion of investigation, P.W.10 Inspector laid charge sheet against the appellant on 8.4.1985

When examined under S.313, Cr.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations against him. He examined one Ponraj as D.W.1 to show that the

appellant was in a depressed state of mind. He had marked Ex.D1 Doctor Certificate to prove the same.

On an appraisal of the evidence on record learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as indicated earlier.

Mrs. Bhagirathi Rangarajan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.2 Ganesan admits that his portion of house is 10 ft. away

from the apartment of the appellant. He had heard only the crying noise of the deceased from the portion of appellant. P.W.5 Nanavathi states that

at the time of occurrence she was cooking in her house. While her house is facing north, the portion of the appellant is facing east, so these three

persons could not have witnesses the occurrence. But from a perusal of Ex.P15 plan, it is seen that the residence of P.W.2 Ganesan and P.W.6

Ponraj from different portions of the same house where the appellant is put up and the location of the different portions do not support the theory

that these persons could not have seen the crime. Further P.W.2 Ganesan only says that on hearing the noise, he went there and found

Konduthai''s head severed there. P.W.6 Ponraj and P.W.5 Nanavathi had also seen that immediately after hearing the crying noise, Konduthai was

lying dead with head severed. It is also in the evidence of P.W.6 Ponraj that they had caught hold of the appellant and tied him to a post. So there

could be no doubt that the appellant had cut and severed the neck of his wife.

Besides pleading guilty to the charge under S.302 I.P.C. framed against him, the appellant has given statement before P.W.4 J.S.C.M. that it is

he who had committed the murder of his wife. In this statement, he mentions about his entertaining a suspicion about the fidelity of his wife and the

illicit intimacy between her and P.W.7 Ramu. The version of P.W.7 Ramu who speaks about the appellant warning him some time prior to the

occurrence not to vend articles to the deceased corroborates the statement made by the appellant before the Magistrate. The medical evidence of

P.W.3 Doctor who had found the Head severed also supports the prosecution version of the incident. Ex.P13 the serologist''s report reveals that

M.O.8 dhothi recovered from the appellant as well as M.Os.9, 10 and 11 the clothes worn by the deceased and M.O.2 blood stained earth

recovered from the scene place bear the same group of human blood. This also strengthens the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 about the occurrence.

P.W.1 V.A.O. speaks about the appellant confessing his guilt before him immediately after the incident and his preferring Ex.P1 complaint to

the police immediately. In Ex.P1 he states what the appellant had told him and his finding the deceased lying head severed in her house. This has

been registered in the Police Station at 9.00 p.m. and there is absolutely no delay in lodging the complaint. These factors establish the complicity of

the appellant in the crime beyond the possibility of any doubt.

Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that as per Ex.P9 confession statement, on the date of occurrence the deceased and the

appellant had been to the forest, one mile north of the village and returned only at about 4.00 p.m. Had the appellant entertained any intention to

do away with his wife he could have easily done away with her in the forest itself. He need not have chosen his house as the place to severe the

head of his wife. But we are not in a position to know what prompted the appellant to commit the act of crime at his residence instead of in the

forest. In view of the evidence of eye witnesses and other circumstances mentioned above, the appellant cannot be absolved in the liability for the

crime merely on this ground.

Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that the appellant was in a depressed state of mind and he could have committed the crime only

on account of some mental derangement, he sought support from the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex-D1 to prove his claim. Ex.D1 purports to be a

certificate issued by Dr. Muthukrishnan stating that the appellant was suffering from anxiety neuresis and depression for which he was given

treatment as an out patient in the hospital on 22.1.1985. In the absence of the evidence of the Doctor who has issued the certificate, we cannot

rely on this to support the contention of the appellant. D.W.1 Ponraj is the younger brother of the appellant. He simply states that this brother

would not answer questions properly and he would talk incoherently. He further says

But this evidence of D.W.1 Ponraj is of no help to the appellant. Under S.84 of the I.P.C. 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 the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or

contrary to law. But in view of the subsequent conduct of the appellant in making the extra judicial confession before P.W.1 V.A.O. soon after the

occurrence and his statement before P.W.4 J.S.C.M. under S.164 Cr.P.C. narrating the circumstances which made him to commit the crime and

the evidence of P.W.7 Ramu that a week prior to the occurrence the appellant told him not to vend any articles to his wife since he was suspecting

illicit intimacy between that Ramu and his wife, it cannot be held that the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was

doing what was wrong.

Learned Public Prosecutor cited the decision in In re: Murthy wherein the ingredients of S.84 I.P.C. for constituting insanity are stated by a

Division Bench of this court as follows:

the accused must, at the time of the commission of the act, be of unsound mind; and

the unsoundness of mind must be such as to make the accused, at the time when he is doing the act charged of an offence incapable of knowing

the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

According to this section, unsoundness of mind, to exempt a person from criminal responsibility, must reach that degree which is described in the

latter part of the section. It is not every kind of unsoundness of mind that would exempt a person from responsibility for a crime by invoking this

section; but it is only unsoundness of mind which materially impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from

criminal responsibility. The nature and the extent of the unsoundness of mind required is such as would make the offender incapable of knowing the

nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law.

Mere unsoundness of mind is not ipso facto a ground of defence under S.84 I.P.C.

S.84 of the I.P.C. lays down the legal responsibility. It is not sufficient to prove that a person was not of sound mind at the time of the

commission of the offence, to attract the provisions of S.84. It is necessary to prove also that by reason of such insanity he was incapable of

knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The question whether the accused was in such a state

of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of S.84 can only be determined from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime.

The burden of establishing the plea of insanity is by virtue of S.105 of the Evidence Act on the accused. But the peculiar behaviour by itself may

not be sufficient to support the plea that a person is insane or that he has a valid legal defence based on insanity. In this case, there is no such

peculiar behaviour of the appellant. Even if there is any his alleged depressed state of mind and melancholy mood may not be sufficient to support

the plea that he has a valid legal defence based on insanity. So we find no hesitation in upholding the conviction and sentence of the trial court.

In the result, the conviction and sentence are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.