C. NAGAPPAN, J.
Appellant Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.285 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chengalpattu, and he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by judgment dated 30.9.2008 in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused.
2. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charge under
Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1. to 9.
4. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows.
P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan is a Salesman and P.W.2 Lily Mary is the Book-shopper of the Book Stall in the Church situated in St.Thomas Mount. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy is the school van driver of the Church. The deceased Jacob alias Jacob Fernando was the Manager of the Church. On 26.11.2006, at 4.45 p.m., P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan and P.W.2 Lily Mary were in the Book Stall and Manager Jacob came there and told them that the Father wanted the Bible and while P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan was taking the Bible, the accused Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu with a beard, hippie hair style and a cloth tied on the head came there with a leather bag and asked for the Manager and on seeing Jacob, asked him as to whether the Mount can be given or not and Manager Jacob told him to go and meet the Father. Immediately, the accused Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu took M.O.1 Chopper knife and threw away its cover and cut Jacob Fernando on the left shoulder. Jacob ran towards Manager room and the accused Ramesh Babu chased and caught hold of him and cut him on his head, neck, ear and all over the body indiscriminately with M.O.1 Chopper knife and Manager Jacob fell down with bleeding injuries. The accused Ramesh Babu took the oozing blood and put the same on his forehead as 'Thilak' and ran away from the place. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan and P.W.2 Lily Mary went and informed the Father and injured Jacob Fernando was taken in a car to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital and P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan also went there.
Dr. Bala Murugan examined Jacob Fernando at 4.45 p.m. on 26.11.2006 in Sri Ramachandra Hospital and found the following injuries -
"1. Triangular shaped lax laceration 25 x 12 x 5 cm with base extending from left ear running through the mid-axilla up to angle of mouth from there extending below till upper 3rd of neck exposing the bones, muscles, vessels with diffuse gushing of blood.
2. Triangular shaped lax laceration 8 x 4 x 2 cm with base over upper neck extending up to chin, exposing the base and muscles.
3. Penetrating wound over left shoulder 2 x 1 cm.
4. Fully cut and severed lower end of left fore arm hanging by the skin of the radial side.
5. L/W right palm 4 x 1 x 1cm.
6. Linear abrasion 30 x 1cm over left side of chest."
"Para 10. The High Court thought that the evidence of the two defence witnesses only suggested an irrational behaviour on the part of the accused. The High Court failed to note that, according to D.W.2, the appellant used to set fire to his own clothes and house, and this could hardly be called irrational; it is more like verging on insanity.
Para 11. The High Court also felt it rather unsafe to rely on the testimony of the two defence witnesses because such evidence could always be procured. .......
Para 12. ......
Para 13. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. We hold that the appellant has discharged the burden. There is no reason why the evidence of Shyam Lal, D.W.1, and Than Singh, D.W.2, should not be believed. ............
Para 14. We accordingly allow the appeal and acquit the appellant of the offence under
Section 435, I.P.C., because at the time of the incident he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning of
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>of the Indian Penal Code." 15. Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3399]. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: "Para 19. The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these: 1. The appellant has a family history his father was suffering from psychiatric illness. 2. Cause of ailment not known hereditary plays a part. 3. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. 4. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital. 5. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment. 6. The weak motive of killing of wife being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable. 7. Killing in day light no attempt to hide or run away. Para 20. .......... In the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The unsoundness of mind before and after incident is a relevant fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably drawn that the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. He was under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by
Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained." 16. Per contra, Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no medical record produced to show the appellant/accused was suffering from mental illness during the period from 29.6.2005 to 3.2.2007 and the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence has to be proved by the accused so as to get the benefit of the exception and the accused had failed to prove the same and the accused purchased cover for the Chopper Knife and came to the occurrence place concealing the same in the leather bag and after meeting Jacob, took it out and attacked Jacob indiscriminately and ran away with the Chopper Knife and he is capable of understanding the nature of his act and knew what he was doing was wrong and the legal insanity is not proved and the protection under
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>IPC cannot be applied to the present case and supported the judgment of conviction. In support of his submission, he relied on the recent decisions of the Apex Court mentioned below. "1) BAPU ALIAS GUJRAJ SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [(2007) 3 SCC (Crl) 509]. 2) HARI SINGH GOND V. STATE OF M.P. [2008 (12) SCALE 102]. 3) SIDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 471]." 17. In all the decisions, His Lordship, Dr.Arijit Pasayat, J., spoke for the Bench and the law laid down in the first decision is verbatim reproduced in the subsequent two decisions. 18. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the decision in BAPU'S CASE (cited supra) considered the scope of
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>I.P.C for exonerating a person from liability and laid down as follows: " Para 7.
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. ......... Para 8. Under
<act id=ObGxPokB_szha0nWLtNN section=84>Section 84 </act>IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. Para 9. .......... Para 10. ......... Para 11. The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen in History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. II, p.166 has observed that if a person cuts off the head of a sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up, would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of knowing the physical effects of his act. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section. ...........
Para 12. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under
Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated M'Naughton rules of 19th century England. The provisions of
Section 84 are in substance the same as those laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords, in M'Naughton's case ((1843) 4 St Tr NS 847 (HL)). Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient.
Para 13. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past, or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section."
19. The settled law is that the onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused and it has to be discharged by producing evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors shortly prior to the occurrence and at the time or immediately afterwards.
20. The evidence let in by the accused Ramesh Babu with regard to his mental condition shortly prior to the occurrence is in the form of oral testimonies of DW.1 Dr.Bashyam and DW.3 Shanthi and the medical record. DW.3 Shanthi is the mother of the accused and according to her, the accused studied in Hindu Vidyalaya school and thereafter joined B.E. Mechanical Course in Anna University and got employment in the campus interview at Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Limited, Manali and studied M.S in SPIC and after serving ten years at TPL, suddenly he declared that he is Kalki Bhagavan and would not go for employment and he used to read religious books like 'Thevaram', 'Dhiviyabharatham' and would state that his brain waves have been taken in the computer and being viewed by others and would speak loudly and thereafter she took him to Malar Hospitals on 4.8.2003 and 30.9.2003 and they prescribed medicines under Ex.D5 (series) to be taken life long.
21. The first document in Ex.D5 (series) is a Medical prescription dated 6.8.2003 in letter pad of Malar Hospitals mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu, aged 33 of Adambakkam, employed in TPL and it is further mentioned in it that on a voyage of self discovery Kalki; lack of sleep; pain neck; pulling sensation of legs; restlessness; mind being manipulated; confusing thinking pattern and being monitored and drugs have been prescribed.
The second document in Ex.D5 (series) is drug prescription dated 23.9.2003 prescribed by Dr.Rangarajan to patient Ramesh mentioning the names of five drugs.
The third document in Ex.D5 (series) is the cash bill dated 6.8.2003 of Adayar Drug House mentioning the name of the drug sold.
The fourth document in Ex.D5 (series) is a prescription dated 23.2.2005 given by Dr.N.Rangarajan to patient Ramesh mentioning three drugs. Dr.Rangarajan has not been examined by the accused.
22. It is further stated by DW.3 Shanthi that the accused refused to take the drug by saying that he is God and hence she took him to Coimbatore and showed him to Dr.Balasubramani and he treated him and Ex.D6 (series) are the medical record.
The first document in Ex.D6 (series) is Appointment Card of Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited, Avanashi Road, Coimbatore, dated 11.9.2003, mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu and his address as Adambakkam, Chennai and mentioning the name of the Doctor as Dr.Srinivasan, Consultant in Psychological Medicine, KMCH, Coimbatore and the dates mentioned are 11.9.2003, 18.9.2003, 25.9.2003 and 9.3.2005.
The second document in Ex.D6 (series) is Medicine Prescription dated 11.9.2003 of Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited mentioning the names of three drugs.
The third document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill, dated 11.9.2003, for having paid Registration Fees to the hospital. The fourth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill, dated 11.9.2003, for having paid the doctor fees to Dr.Srinivasan. The fifth document in Ex.D6 (series) is Medicine Prescription dated 18.9.2003, in which, Dr.Srinivasan had prescribed a drug. The sixth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated 18.9.2003 of Pharmacy Division, KMCH, Coimbatore mentioning the name of the drug sold to Ramesh Babu. The seventh document in Ex.D6 (series) is Cash Bill dated 18.9.2003 for having paid the Doctor Fees to Dr.Srinivasan. The eighth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Medicine Prescription dated 9.2.2005 of KMCH, in which, Dr.Srinivasan has prescribed three drugs to Ramesh Babu. The ninth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated 9.2.2005 of Pharmacy Division, KMCH mentioning the names of drugs of sold to Ramesh Babu. The tenth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated 9.2.2005 of KMCH for having paid Doctor Fees to Dr.Srinivasan. At this juncture it is relevant to point out that Dr.Srinivasan was not examined by the accused.
23. DW.3 Shanthi has further stated that she took the accused Ramesh Babu to Dr.Bashyam for one year and the Doctor declared him fit to go for employment and directed the accused to continuously take the drug and warned him that in case of discontinuance of drug, the problem would arise.
24. Dr.Bashyam retired as the Director of Government Mental Hospital in the year 1997 and was doing private practice and he has been examined as DW.1. According to DW.1 Dr.Bashyam, the accused came to him for the first time for treatment on 2.10.2003 and he examined him and prescribed five drugs and asked him to take the same for a period of fifteen days and then to meet him and thereafter he examined the accused on 15.10.2003; 19.11.2003; 4.12.2003; 31.12.2003; 14.1.2004; 5.2.2004; 20.2.2004; 4.3.2004; 30.3.2004; 14.4.2004; 14.5.2004 and on 29.6.2004. He has further stated that while the accused was under treatment, he sent him to clinical test and obtained Ex.D2 Report and came to know that the accused was having paranoid psychosis and he prescribed medicines.
The first document in Ex.D1 (series) is the Prescription in letter pad of Dr.Bashyam, dated 2.10.2003, mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu containing the various dates referred above on which he examined Ramesh Babu and mentioning the names of the drugs prescribed on those dates.
Document Nos.2 to 4 in Ex.D1 (series) are Cash Bills dated 15.10.2003, 20.2.2004, 19.11.2003 of S.S.Chemists Medical Shop mentioning the names of the drugs sold to Ramesh Babu. Documents 5 and 6 in Ex.D1 (series) are Bills dated 30.4.2004 and 30.6.2004 of Appollo Pharmacy mentioning the names of the drugs sold to Ramesh Babu.
25. Ex.D2 is the Psychological Report dated 24.11.2003 issued by Mr.S.Balakrishnan, Clinical Psychologist, residing at Plot No.13/17, Annamalai Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai. In Ex.D2 Report, Mr.S.Balakrishnan has mentioned the test findings and in the summary he has stated that Ramesh Babu is showing significant features of paranoid disorder and there are problems in adjustment in the area of interpersonal regions and self concept. The author of Ex.D2 Report Mr.S.Balakrishnan has not been examined by the accused. He is not in Government service. Ex.D2 Report came to be marked through DW.1 Dr.Bashyam. Though Dr.Bashyam, in his testimony, has stated that he sent Ramesh Babu to clinical test and obtained Ex.D2 Report, there is no mention about the referral of the accused to Mr.S.Balakrishnan or receipt of Ex.D2 Report in the first document in Ex.D1 (series) viz., the prescription letter containing running notes of examination of Ramesh Babu on various dates. Dr.Bashyam is a private practitioner and the only medical record pertaining to patient Ramesh Babu maintained by him is the first document in Ex.D1 (series) referred above and if really Ramesh Babu was referred to test, it ought to have been mentioned in the above medical record, but that is not mentioned. In short, nothing about the referral and receipt of report is mentioned in first document in Ex.D1 (series). In such circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Ex.D2 Report is a contemporaneous document which came into existence at the time when DW.1 Dr.Bashyam treated Ramesh Babu and much reliance cannot be placed on it. In this context, it is relevant to point out that DW.1 Dr.Bashyam in his running notes of examination in the first document in Ex.D1 (series) has not recorded that Ramesh Babu was suffering from paranoid psychosis. No such diagnosis was shown to have been made by him during his treatment. Only during the oral testimony, he has come out with such a version, which is not supported by any contemporaneous record maintained by him.
26. DW.1 Dr.Bashyam has categorically stated that the accused did not come to him for treatment after 29.6.2004 and he did not know as to whether the accused took any treatment thereafter and according to him, the accused though afflicted with mental illness, could wear proper dress, ride a vehicle and it does not affect his Engineer career.
27. It is the further testimony of DW.3 Shanthi, mother of the accused, that after the treatment by Dr.Bashyam, the accused went to Paris in France and employed there and thereafter he returned home and refused to take the drugs by saying that he is 'Kalki Bhagavan' and she took him to General Hospital, Chennai and showed him there. Ex.D7 is the O.P. Chit dated 29.6.2005 issued by Psychiatric Division of Government General Hospital, Chennai mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu and a drug has been prescribed for ten days in it. It is further stated by DW.3 Shanthi that she went to her daughter's house at Vaniyambadi and stayed there and she was not in the house at Chennai when the occurrence took place and she was telephonically informed about the arrest of the accused. The above is the evidence let in pertaining to the period prior to occurrence and the last date on which the accused took treatment was 29.6.2005.
28. In so far as the period in and around the time of occurrence is concerned, there is no evidence adduced to show that the accused was taking medical treatment and was under the care of doctor. In fact, the mother of the accused DW.3 Shanthi in her cross-examination has admitted that she did not file any medical record to show that the accused was taking continuous medical treatment from 29.6.2005 to 3.2.2007. It is her testimony that she went to Vaniyambadi and stayed with her daughter and she was not in Chennai at the time of occurrence. This shows that the accused was on his own living in the house at Chennai. In this context, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that if really the mental condition of the son was not alright, the mother would not have left him alone in the house and went and resided with the daughter at Vaniyambadi, assumes significance.
29. The occurrence took place on 26.11.2006 at 4.45 pm in the evening in the premises of St.Thomas Mount Church. As already seen, P.Ws.1 to 3 have witnessed the attack made by the accused with Chopper Knife on Jacob. PW.1 Gilbert Mohan in his testimony has stated that at the time of occurrence the accused was standing fury and took the oozing blood of Jacob and put 'Thilak' on his forehead with it. PW.2 Lilly Mary in her testimony has stated that the accused asked Jacob as to whether the mountain could be given or not and Jacob told him to go and meet the Father and immediately the accused attacked Jacob and took the oozing blood and put 'Thilak' in his forehead. She has further stated that the accused did not appear to be insane and he came as a rowdy with ugly look and spoke furiously. PW.3 Adaikalasamy in his testimony has deposed that the accused appeared cruelly but does not appear to be in disturbed state of mind.
30. PW.5 Sugumar was present when the accused was enquired by the Investigation Officer and was also witness for recovery and he has stated that the accused called himself as 'Kalki Avatar God' and he did not appear to be a mentally disturbed person and he was found normal. The Investigation Officer PW.11 Arockiya Raveendran has stated that during enquiry, the accused told him that he believed that he is 'Kalki Bhagavan' and in the documents referred from his house, he had put his signature as 'Kalki Ramesh Babu'. Ex.P15 is the Inquest Report prepared by the Investigation Officer, in which, it is mentioned that the accused asked Jacob as to whether the mountain could be given to them or not and Jacob told him that he cannot answer and to go and ask Father and immediately the accused took Chopper Knife from the bag and attacked Jacob.
31. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that during investigation the history of insanity of the accused was revealed and still the Investigation Officer did not subject the accused to medical examination and place the evidence before the Court and it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit has to be given to the accused. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during investigation, the mother of the accused filed petition dated 4.1.2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and order dated 25.1.2007 was passed to subject the accused for examination and medical examination of the accused was done at Government Mental Hospital, Chennai on various dates and subsequently the mother of the accused filed another petition before this Court and Order dated 23.7.2007 was passed directing psychiatric examination and the accused was admitted in the Mental Hospital and was treated by DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan who issued Ex.D3 Observation Report and medical examination was factually done and there is no infirmity in this regard. Though the Investigation Officer did not subject the accused to medical examination, that was practically done pursuant to the orders of the Court at the initiative taken by the mother of the accused and evidence is before the Court and hence there is no infirmity affecting the prosecution case.
32. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is seen that the accused claimed himself to be 'Kalki Bhagavan' in and around the period of occurrence. No evidence was let in to show that the mental illness of the accused continued during that period and no medical record was produced. In this context, it is also relevant to note that no petition under
Section 329 Cr.P.C stating that the accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate or the Trial Court.
33. The period immediately after the occurrence is concerned, the evidence available is Ex.P19 O.P. Chit of Government Mental Hospital, Chennai and the oral testimony of DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan coupled with Ex.D3 Observation Report issued by him. As already seen, on the petition filed by the mother of the accused viz., DW.3 Shanthi, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur directed the Mental Hospital to examine the accused. Ex.P19 is the O.P. Chit of the hospital and as per the entries therein, Dr.R.Radhakrishnan had examined the accused on 3.2.2007, 12.2.2007, 3.3.2007, 6.3.2007 and 10.3.2007 and psychological assessment has been done and the accused was advised to come on 12.3.2007, but he was not brought for further observation. Dr.R.Radhakrishnan has not been examined in the case. In the notings in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit, he has only written that the patient was observed and presented before unit chief and psychological assessment has been done and the current status is mentioned as observation, psychometry incomplete and the patient needs further observation. No document relating to psychological assessment referred above is filed. The notings in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit does not reveal any specific mental illness of the patient and the status of examination remained incomplete.
34. DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan is the Assistant Surgeon, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk and he has testified that the accused Ramesh Babu was admitted in the Mental Hospital on 21.8.2007 as in-patient and physical examination and psychiatric examination were done and he was observed from 21.8.2007 to 5.9.2007 on several occasions. Ex.D3 is the Observation Report issued by them containing the result of the examination and opinion. They are extracted below for better appreciation.
"On Examination he is cooperative, he maintains eye contact, he is aware of the surroundings. His behaviour, mood, perception, attention, concentration, memory, general information, intelligence were found to be normal.
He answers to questions relevantly to begin with. He is having many abnormal false beliefs (Delusions). He firmly believes he is "Baghwan Kalki". He also believes he is having the power of God Siva. He believes a man is against his mission and preventing his actions. He believes his Ideas are taken out of his brain through electrodes and seen in a computer. He believes clones are being made in the society. He firmly believes he created the tsunami in the year 2004. He believes at times his mother is acting on behalf of persons against him. His thinking is extensively abnormal. He denies having any psychiatric illness. He is not in touch with reality.
OPINION:
He is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a Major Mental Illness. He is presently treated with antipsychotic medications. He requires continuous, long term antipsychotic medications, periodic follow up and treatment by a Psychiatrist."
From the above, it is seen that the examination conducted was one of putting questions to the patient and the answers given by Ramesh Babu have been recorded and mentioned as such in Ex.D3 Observation Report. Of course, the opinion expressed is that Ramesh Babu is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a major mental illness. DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan has stated that the accused Ramesh Babu was first examined in Mental Hospital on 3.2.2007 and he cannot tell as to what was his mental condition before that date and he cannot also precisely state the period of mental illness prior to their examination.
35. The burden of proof rests on the accused to prove his insanity and it is no higher than which rests upon a party to a civil proceeding. The crucial point for deciding whether the benefit under
Section 84 IPC should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place.
36. In so far as the evidence let in by the accused prior to the occurrence is concerned, there is no diagnosis that the accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. Though DW.1 Dr.Bashyam in the testimony before the Court has stated that he diagnosed the above mental illness during his treatment in the year 2003-2004 based on Ex.D2 Psychological Report, no such diagnosis was recorded by him in the contemporaneous record, in his notes in Ex.D1 (series). Further, the author of Ex.D2 Psychological Report Mr.S.Balakrishnan was not examined and it is already concluded that no reliance can be placed on the said document.
37. There is no history of psychiatric illness in the family of the accused. With regard to the evidence adduced subsequent to the commission of the offence is concerned, the accused was first examined in the Mental Hospital, Chennai on 3.2.2007, more than two months after the occurrence and even then, no diagnosis was made as found in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit. Only on 6.9.2007, DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan has expressed opinion that the accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that diagnosis was made after a period of nine months from the date of occurrence and it cannot be said to be proximate in time to the event.
38. There is no proof adduced by the accused regarding his state of mind at the time of commission of the offence. As already seen, the accused after getting treatment, went to Paris in France and employed there for sometime in the year 2005 and returned to India and did not take any treatment in the year 2006 and there is no evidence to show that the ailment continued and the inference is he was in fit state of mind. Two days prior to occurrence, he met PW.4 Mohideen and purchased covers for his Knives and went to the occurrence place concealing the Chopper Knife in his leather bag and on meeting Jacob, he suddenly pulled it out and cut Jacob with it and when Jacob ran away, the accused chased and caught hold of him and indiscriminately cut him with the Chopper Knife in day-light in the presence of people and ran away with the weapon from the occurrence place and was subsequently arrested. Thus there was deliberation and preparation for the act and it was done in a manner which showed desire to concealment and the accused's consciousness of guilt by running away from the place to avoid apprehension; all these facts are material considerations to be borne in mind.
39. The decision in BHOSALE'S CASE (referred above) relied on by Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the accused therein had a family history of psychiatric illness and he was diagnosed as suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia prior to the occurrence and he was under regular medical treatment for the mental illness and those circumstances are absent in the present case.
40. In the same way, the contention made relying on the decision in THAKKAR'S CASE (cited supra) that even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence let in, if raises a reasonable doubt as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, the accused is entitled for acquittal, is also devoid of merit since the evidence let in, in the present case, does not give room for doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the mental ailment of the accused.
41. The other decision in RATAN LAL'S CASE (referred to supra), relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, is mainly based on factual matrix and no ratio was laid down.
42. It is true that there is no motive for the occurrence, but it cannot, in the absence of proof of legal insanity, bring the present case within the ambit of
Section 84 IPC. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion affords no protection under
Section 84 IPC. The accused had abnormal behaviour and was under treatment till the beginning of the year 2005 and thereafter remained mentally fit. Actuated by religious fanaticism , he had ventured to attack the victim to death. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court set out above, in the background of facts, the present case is not one where the protection under
Section 84 IPC can be applied. However, as and when the Jail Authorities feel the appellant needs treatment, he should be immediately sent for treatment at Government Mental Hospital, Chennai.
43. There are no merits in the Appeal and the same is dismissed.
vks To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Chengalpattu.
2. -do- through the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
3. The Inspector of Police, B1, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai-600 016.
4. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
5. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 044.
6. The District Collector, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.
7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai-600 104.
8. The Section Officer, Criminal Side Section, High Court, Madras 600 104