Ramesh alias Ramesh Babu v. State

2. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judgefound the accused guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC andconvicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to paya fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one month RigorousImprisonment.3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1. to 9. 4. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned fromoral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows.P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan is a Salesman and P.W.2 Lily Mary isthe Book-shopper of the Book Stall in the Church situated inSt.Thomas Mount. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy is the school van driver ofthe Church. The deceased Jacob alias Jacob Fernando was the Managerof the Church. On 26.11.2006, at 4.45 p.m., P.W.1 Gilbert Mohanand P.W.2 Lily Mary were in the Book Stall and Manager Jacob camethere and told them that the Father wanted the Bible and while P.W.1Gilbert Mohan was taking the Bible, the accused Ramesh @ Ramesh Babuwith a beard, hippie hair style and a cloth tied on the head camethere with a leather bag and asked for the Manager and on seeingJacob, asked him as to whether the Mount can be given or not andManager Jacob told him to go and meet the Father. Immediately, theaccused Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu took M.O.1 Chopper knife and threw awayits cover and cut Jacob Fernando on the left shoulder. Jacob rantowards Manager room and the accused Ramesh Babu chased and caughthold of him and cut him on his head, neck, ear and all over the bodyindiscriminately with M.O.1 Chopper knife and Manager Jacobfell down with bleeding injuries. The accused Ramesh Babu tookthe oozing blood and put the same on his forehead as 'Thilak' and ranaway from the place. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy also witnessed theoccurrence. P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan and P.W.2 Lily Mary went andinformed the Father and injured Jacob Fernando was taken in a car toSri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital and P.W.1 Gilbert Mohanalso went there.Dr. Bala Murugan examined Jacob Fernando at 4.45 p.m. on26.11.2006 in Sri Ramachandra Hospital and found the followinginjuries -"1. Triangular shaped lax laceration 25 x12 x 5 cm with base extending from left earrunning through the mid-axilla up to angle ofmouth from there extending below till upper 3rd ofneck exposing the bones, muscles, vessels withdiffuse gushing of blood. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Triangular shaped lax laceration 8 x 4x 2 cm with base over upper neck extending up tochin, exposing the base and muscles.3. Penetrating wound over left shoulder 2 x1 cm.4. Fully cut and severed lower end of leftfore 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 ofchest."Ex.P6 is the Accident Register issued by him. Jacob Fernando diedin the hospital.P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan went to St. Thomas Mount PoliceStation at 7.15 p.m. on 26.11.2006 and gave Ex.P1 Complaint andP.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran received the same andregistered a case in Crime No. 846/2006 under Section 302 IPC andprepared Ex.P11 Printed First Information Report and despatched thesame to the Court. He went to the occurrence place and preparedEx.P12 Observation Mahazar in the presence of Charles and Samiduraiand Ex.P13 is the Rough sketch drawn by him. He seized M.O.8-seriesBlood stained earth and Sample earth under Ex.P14 Mahazar in thepresence of the same witnesses. He examined P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan,P.W.2 Lily Mary, P.W.3 Adaikalasamy and some other witnesses andrecorded their statements. He went to S.R.M.C. Hospital and tookM.O.9-series Photographs of the body through Photographer PanneerSelvam. On 27.11.2006, he conducted inquest on the body in thepresence of panchayatars and prepared Ex.P15 Inquest Report. Hesent the body to Government Hospital, Tambaram, for post-mortemthrough Head constable Thiagarajan by giving requisition. P.W.8 Dr. Leena conducted autopsy on the body at 2.00p.m. on 27.11.2006 and found the following - " 1. Large lacerated injury of size 25 cm x3 cm over the left side face, mandible andmaxillary region exposing the muscles and bone.The injury extends backward up to the back of thehead – occipital region with the ear lobe. 2. Cut injury parallel to the previous injuryof size 15 cm x 3 cm – located over the upperaspect of the neck on the left side – exposing – https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the muscles and bone extending backward.3. Fractured earlobe – cut into two.4. Inverted 'U' shaped lacerated injury of sizeover the upper aspect of the right side of neckexposing the underlying muscles.5. Penetrating injury (up to the bone) of size 5cm x 1 cm over the left shoulder joint.6. Superficial (skin deep) cut injury over theback of left shoulder 13 x 1cm.7. Fully cut injury over the distal end of leftforearm resulting in the extremity being severedcompletely except being attacked by the skin.Both bones of left fore-arm fractured.8. Cut injury fore-arm 5 x 2 cm. Distal to theprevious one. (left fore-arm).9. Cut injury over the medial aspect of the leftpalm, metacarpal bones.10. Cut injury over the distal aspect of the leftpalm 8 cm left.11. Cut injury involving middle of the right palm.Appearance:Eyes closed. Mouth partially open, Tongue insidemouth, clotted blood around here and herewith.Chest:Cut injury Superficial – skin deep on the leftside chest below the axilla (4 cm)Rib cage: Fractured ribs 2, 3, 4 on the left side. Fractured ribs 3, 4, 5 on the right side.Hyoid Intact. Trachea free. Heart Pale, empty.Lung : Pale. 2cm laceration with frothyhaemorrhage on the left side lung. Stomach: Pale contains 350 gms of partly digestedfood. Intestine, Liver, Spleen-pale, Kidney-pale.Bladder-empty. Skull bones intact. Membranesintact. Brain Pale. Base of skull intact. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Viscera, Stomach and content, Liver, Kidney,Spleen – sent for chemical analysis.Blood could not be collected as there wasn'tany blood or blood clots."She expressed opinion that the deceased would appear to have died dueto haemorrhage shock due to injury to vital structures. Ex.P7 isPost-mortem Certificate issued by her.P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran arrested theaccused Ramesh Babu at 11.30 a.m. on 27.11.2006 in the junction ofPonniamman Koil Street and Pudupet at Alandur and enquired him in thepresence of P.W.5 Sugumaran and another and recorded the confessionstatement given by him in the presence of the said witnesses. Ex.P2is the Admissible portion. The accused Ramesh Babu produced M.O.4SUZUKI Motor cycle, M.O.7 Knife with a cover and the cloth tied onthe head and P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran recovered themunder Ex.P4 Mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses. Theaccused Ramesh Babu took them to his house bearing Door No.26, 8thStreet, New Colony, Adambakkam, and produced M.O.1 Blood stainedChopper Knife, M.O.2-series Clothes worn by him at the time ofoccurrence, M.O.5-series Passports and the Letter written by him andM.O.6-series Knives and P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendranrecovered them at 1.40 p.m. under Ex.P3 Mahazar in the presence ofthe same witnesses. P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran examinedP.W.4 Mohideen, who stitched the covers for the knives onconsideration paid by the accused Ramesh Babu, and recorded hisstatement. He sent the accused Ramesh Babu for judicial remand. Heseized M.O.3-series clothes of the deceased taken from the body andproduced before him under Ex.P16 Form 95. He obtained sample hand-writing of the accused Ramesh Babu and sent the properties to theCourt on 28.11.2006. On 30.11.2006, he gave requisition forconducting Identification Parade for the witnesses and as per theOrder of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, P.W.6 Judicial MagistrateRavindran conducted the Identification Parade on 7.12.2006 for P.W.1Gilbert Mohan, P.W.2 Lily Mary and two other witnesses. Ex.P5-series is the Report of the Proceedings. P.W.11 Inspector D. ArockiyaRaveendran gave Ex.P17 Requisition for sending the documents forcomparison to the hand-writing Expert. P.W.10 Thamarai Selvan,Scientific Assistant Gr.I and Document Expert, compared the hand-writings and issued Ex.P10 Report. The properties were sent forChemical Examination and Ex.P10 Chemical Examination Report andEx.P18 Serology Report were received in the Court. As per the Orderof the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, P.W.11 Inspector D.Arockiya Raveendran sent the accused Ramesh Babu to the Mental https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital at Kilpauk, Chennai 10, and Ex.P19 is the O.P. Chit issuedby them. He completed the investigation on 29.12.2006 and filed theFinal Report against the accused. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and hedenied complicity. D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.7 weremarked on their side. 6. The trial Court found the first accused guilty of thecharge of murder and sentenced him as stated earlier. Challengingthe same, he has preferred the present appeal. 7. The prosecution case is that the accused Ramesh aliasRamesh Babu indiscriminately cut Jacob alias Jacob Fernando withM.O.1-Chopper Knife, resulting in his death, at the time ofoccurrence P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined as having witnessed theoccurrence. PW.1 Gilbert Mohan is the Salesman of the Book Stallin the Church situated in St.Thomas Mount and PW.2 Lily Mary is theBook-shopper. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy is the school van driver of theChurch. Jacob alias Jacob Fernando was the Manager of the Church.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, on 26.11.2006 at 4.45 pm, they were inthe Book Stall and Manager Jacob came there and told them that theFather wanted the Bible and while P.W.1.Gilbert Mohan was takingthe Bible, the accused Ramesh Babu with a beard, hippie hair styleand a cloth tied on the head came there with a leather bag andasked for the Manager and on seeing Jacob, asked him as to whetherthe Mountain can be given or not and Jacob told him to go andmeet the Father and immediately the accused Ramesh Babu took outM.O.1 Chopper Knife and threw away its cover and cut Jacob on theleft shoulder and Jacob ran towards Manager room and the accusedchased and caught hold of him and cut him indiscriminately withM.O.1 Chopper Knife on his head, neck, ear and other parts of thebody and Jacob fell down with bleeding injuries and the accusedtook the oozing blood and put the same on his forehead as 'Thilak'and ran away with weapon and they took Jacob to Sri RamachandraMedical College Hospital and he died there and PW.1 Gilbert Mohanlodged Ex.P1 Complaint in St.Thomas Mount Police Station. P.W.3Adaikalasamy has also testified that while he was talking withAlamelu in front of the Church, he saw injured Jacob running toManager room, chased and attacked by the accused with Chopperknife. 8. P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan and PW.2 Lily Mary are the employeesof the Book Stall in the Church and PW.3 Adaikalasamy is the schoolvan driver of the Church and their presence in the occurrence placeis natural and they have testified about the attack made by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused with Chopper Knife on their Manager Jacob resulting inbleeding injuries. P.Ws.1 and 2 have also identified the accusedin the Identification Parade. P.W.6 Judicial Magistrate Mr.Ravindranconducted Identification Parade on 7.12.2006 for four witnessesand P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the accused Ramesh Babu in allthe formations. Ex.P5 (series) is the Report of the Proceedings ofthe Identification Parade. It is relevant to note that theIdentification Parade was held on the eleventh day from theoccurrence and P.Ws.1 and 2 have pointed out the accusedcorrectly. This corroborates their testimony in Court. Thetestimonies of ocular witnesses are natural, cogent and convincingbesides being trustworthy and deserve acceptance. 9. It has to be seen as to whether Jacob died of injuriessustained. Immediately after the occurrence, Jacob was takento S.R.M.C. Hospital and Dr.Balamurugan examined him.Dr.Balamurugan had gone abroad and P.W.7 Dr.Sheban knew hissignature and he has testified on his behalf. Dr.Balamurugan foundlaceration with base extending from left ear till upper 3rd of neckexposing bones, muscles, vessels with diffuse gushing of blood;another laceration over upper neck extending upto chin; apenetrating wound over left shoulder; cut and severed lower end ofleft forearm hanging and injuries on right palm and left side ofchest. Ex.P6 is the Accident Register issued by him stating thatthe injuries are life threatening. According to P.Ws.1 to 3, Jacobdied in the same hospital. P.W.8 Dr.Leena had conducted autopsy onthe body and the doctor has testified that she saw a large laceratedinjury over the left side face extending upto back of the head –occipital region; cut injury parallel to the previous injury on theleft side of the neck; fractured earlobe; another lacerated injuryover the right side of neck; Penetrating injury over the leftshoulder joint; cut injuries over the back of left shoulder, overthe left forearm; and cut injuries over the left palm and rightpalm and on the internal examination, found ribs on both sides ofthe lungs fractured with frothy haemorrhage. She expressed opinionthat the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage shockdue to injuries to vital structures and issued Ex.P7 Post-mortemCertificate. From the medical evidence, it is established thatJacob died of homicidal violence. 10. The accused is said to have given information leading torecovery of weapon of offence. The Investigation Officer PW.11Arockiya Raveendran deposed that he arrested the accused Ramesh Babuat 11.30 am on 27.11.2006 in the junction of Ponniamman Koil Streetand Pudupet at Alandur and enquired him in the presence of P.W.5Sugumaran and another and recorded the confession statement,containing Ex.P2 admissible portion, given by him and the accusedtook them to his house and took and produced M.O.1 Blood stainedChopper Knife along with other material objects and he recovered them https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Ex.P3 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. Themahazar witness P.W.5 Sugumaran has confirmed in his testimony thatthe accused gave information in his presence and took and producedM.O.1 Chopper Knife along with other material objects from hishouse and they were recovered in his presence. M.O.1 Blood stainedChopper Knife was sent to chemical examination along with othermaterial objects and human 'B' group bood was detected in M.O.3(series) clothes of the deceased and the same human 'B' groupbood was detected in M.O.1 Chopper Knife as evident from Ex.P8Chemical examiner report and Ex.P18 Serologist report. MO.1Chopper Knife has been identified by PW.1 Gilbert Mohan as havingbeen used by the accused Ramesh Babu to attack Jacob. Hence it isclear that MO.1 Chopper Knife is the weapon of offence. 11. The ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses about theattack made by the accused on Jacob is corroborated by medicalevidence also. In fact, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant, did not seriously dispute theoccurrence. 12. The only contention of Mr.Ashok Kumar, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the appellant wassuffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a major mental illness andthe appellant has established the same by examining doctors,producing medical record and the circumstances which preceded,attendant and followed the crime and he was suffering from insanityand he was not fully aware of his activities and its consequences andhe is entitled to the benefit of general exception contained inSection 84 IPC and the conviction and sentence imposed on him cannotbe sustained. He placed reliance on the following decisions of theSupreme Court. 13. The first decision relied on is DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAITHAKKAR V. STATE OF GUJARAT [AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1563] andTheir Lordships of the Apex Court laid down the followingpropositions with regard to the burden of proof on the plea ofinsanity:"Para 7. The doctrine of burden of proof in thecontext of the plea of insanity may be stated in thefollowing propositions: (1) The prosecution must provebeyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committedthe offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burdenof proving that always rests on the prosecution fromthe beginning to the end of the trial. (2)There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused wasnot insane, when he committed the crime, in the senselaid down by S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused may rebut it by placing before the court allthe relevant evidence – oral, documentary orcircumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is nohigher than that rests upon a party to civilproceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able toestablish conclusively that he was insane at the timehe committed the offence, the evidence placed beforethe court by the accused or by the prosecution mayraise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court asregards one or more of the ingredients of the offence,including mens rea of the accused and in that case thecourt would be entitled to acquit the accused on theground that the general burden of proof resting on theprosecution was not discharged." 14. In the next decision in RATAN LAL V. THE STATE OFMADHYA PRADESH [1970 (3) Supreme Court Cases 533], the SupremeCourt while dealing with the plea of unsoundness of mind raised bythe accused in a charge relating to mischief by fire, held thatthe accused had discharged the burden by examining the defencewitnesses. The relevant portions in the above decision areextracted below:"Para 10. The High Court thought that the evidence ofthe two defence witnesses only suggested an irrationalbehaviour on the part of the accused. The High Courtfailed to note that, according to D.W.2, the appellantused to set fire to his own clothes and house, and thiscould hardly be called irrational; it is more likeverging on insanity. Para 11. The High Court also felt it rather unsafeto rely on the testimony of the two defence witnessesbecause such evidence could always beprocured. ....... Para 12. ...... Para 13. We are inclined to agree with theconclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. Wehold 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 acquitthe appellant of the offence under Section 435,I.P.C., because at the time of the incident he was aperson of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84of the Indian Penal Code." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant, strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court inSHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [AIR 2002SUPREME COURT 3399]. For better appreciation, the relevantparagraphs are extracted as under: "Para 19. The circumstances that stand proved in thecase in hand are these: 1. The appellant has a family history – hisfather was suffering from psychiatric illness. 2. Cause of ailment not known hereditary plays apart. 3. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness ofmind since 1992 – Diagnosed as suffering from paranoidschizophrenia. 4. Within a short span, soon after the incidentfrom 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had tobe taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital. 5. Appellant was under regular treatment for themental ailment. 6. The weak motive of killing of wife – beingthat she was opposing the idea of the appellantresigning the job of a Police Constable. 7. Killing in day light – no attempt to hideor run away. Para 20. .......... In the present case,however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but itis the totality of the circumstances seen in the lightof the evidence on record to prove that the appellantwas suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Theunsoundness of mind before and after incident is arelevant fact. From the circumstances of the caseclearly an inference can be reasonably drawn that theappellant was under a delusion at the relevant time.He was under an attack of the ailment. The angertheory on which reliance has been placed is notruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regardto the nature of burden on the appellant, we are of theview that the appellant has proved the existence ofcircumstances as required by Section 105 of theEvidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC.We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as aresult of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, theappellant was incapable of knowing the nature of theact by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he isentitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence,the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot besustained."16. Per contra, Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor submitted that there are no medical recordproduced to show the appellant/accused was suffering from mentalillness during the period from 29.6.2005 to 3.2.2007 and the stateof mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence has tobe proved by the accused so as to get the benefit of the exceptionand the accused had failed to prove the same and the accusedpurchased cover for the Chopper Knife and came to the occurrenceplace concealing the same in the leather bag and after meetingJacob, took it out and attacked Jacob indiscriminately and ranaway with the Chopper Knife and he is capable of understanding thenature of his act and knew what he was doing was wrong and thelegal insanity is not proved and the protection under Section 84IPC cannot be applied to the present case and supported thejudgment of conviction. In support of his submission, herelied on the recent decisions of the Apex Court mentioned below. "1) BAPU ALIAS GUJRAJ SINGH V. STATE OFRAJASTHAN [(2007) 3 SCC (Crl) 509]. 2) HARI SINGH GOND V. STATE OF M.P. [2008(12) SCALE 102]. 3) SIDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV V. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA [(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 firstdecision is verbatim reproduced in the subsequent two decisions. 18. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in thedecision in BAPU'S CASE (cited supra) considered the scope ofSection 84 I.P.C for exonerating a person from liability and laiddown as follows: " Para 7. Section 84 lays down the legal test ofresponsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness ofmind. There is no definition of "unsoundness ofmind" in IPC. The courts have, however, mainlytreated this expression as equivalent to insanity.But the term "insanity" itself has no precise https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ definition. It is a term used to describe varyingdegrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who ismentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted fromcriminal responsibility. Adistinction is to be made between legal insanity andmedical insanity. A court is concerned with legalinsanity, and not with medical insanity. ......... Para 8. Under Section 84 IPC, a person isexonerated from liability for doing an act on theground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time ofdoing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) thenature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what iseither wrong or contrary to law. The accused isprotected not only when, on account of insanity, hewas incapable of knowing the nature of the act, butalso when he did not know either that the act waswrong or that it was contrary to law, although hemight know the nature of the act itself. He is,however, not protected if he knew that what he wasdoing was wrong, even if he did not know that it wascontrary to law, and also if he knew that what he wasdoing was contrary to law even though he did not knowthat it was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundnessof mind is on the accused. But where during theinvestigation previous history of insanity isrevealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator tosubject the accused to a medical examination andplace that evidence before the court and if this isnot done, it creates a serious infirmity in theprosecution case and the benefit of doubt has tobe given to the accused. The onus, however, has tobe discharged by producing evidence as to the conductof the accused shortly prior to the offence and hisconduct at the time or immediately afterwards, alsoby evidence of his mental condition and otherrelevant factors. Every person is presumed to knowthe natural consequences of his act. Similarly everyperson is also presumed to know the law. Theprosecution has not to establish these facts. Para 9. .......... Para 10. ......... Para 11. The section itself provides that thebenefit is available only after it is proved that atthe time of committing the act, the accused waslabouring under such a defect of reason, from diseaseof the mind, as not to know the nature and quality ofthe act he was doing, or that even if he did not knowit, it was either wrong or contrary to law then thissection must be applied. The crucial point of time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for deciding whether the benefit of this sectionshould be given or not, is the material time when theoffence takes place. In coming to that conclusion,the relevant circumstances are to be taken intoconsideration, it would be dangerous to admit thedefence of insanity upon arguments derived merelyfrom the character of the crime. It is onlyunsoundness of mind which naturally impairs thecognitive faculties of the mind that can form aground 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 offthe head of a sleeping man because it would be greatfun to see him looking for it when he woke up, wouldobviously be a case where the perpetrator of the actwould be incapable of knowing the physical effects ofhis act. The law recognises nothing but incapacityto realise the nature of the act and presumes thatwhere a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocinationare sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing,he must always be presumed to intend the consequenceof the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for acrime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in theabsence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bringthe case within this section. ........... Para 12. Mere abnormality of mind or partialdelusion, irresistible impulse or compulsivebehaviour of a psychopath affords no protection underSection 84 as the law contained in that section isstill squarely based on the outdated M'Naughton rulesof 19th century England. The provisions of Section 84are in substance the same as those laid down in theanswers of the Judges to the questions put to them bythe House of Lords, in M'Naughton's case ((1843) 4 StTr NS 847 (HL)). Behaviour, antecedent, attendant andsubsequent to the event, may be relevant in findingthe mental condition of the accused at the time ofthe event, but not that remote in time. It isdifficult to prove the precise state of theoffender's mind at the time of the commission of theoffence, but some indication thereof is oftenfurnished by the conduct of the offender whilecommitting it or immediately after the commission ofthe offence. A lucid interval of an insane person isnot merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of thedisorder, but a restoration of the faculties of themind sufficiently to enable the person soundly tojudge the act; but the expression does not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration ofthe mental faculties to their original condition.So, if there is such a restoration, the personconcerned can do the act with such reason, memory andjudgment as to make it a legal act; but merely acessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder isnot sufficient. Para 13. The standard to be applied is whetheraccording to the ordinary standard, adopted byreasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The merefact that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible andhis brain is not quite all right, or that thephysical and mental ailments from which he sufferedhad rendered his intellect weak and had affected hisemotions and will, or that he had committed certainunusual acts in the past, or that he was liable torecurring fits of insanity at short intervals, orthat he was subject to getting epileptic fits butthere was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or thathis behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient toattract the application of this section." 19. The settled law is that the onus of proving unsoundnessof mind is on the accused and it has to be discharged by producingevidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors shortlyprior to the occurrence and at the time or immediately afterwards. 20. The evidence let in by the accused Ramesh Babu with regardto his mental condition shortly prior to the occurrence is in theform of oral testimonies of DW.1 Dr.Bashyam and DW.3 Shanthi andthe medical record. DW.3 Shanthi is the mother of the accused andaccording to her, the accused studied in Hindu Vidyalaya school andthereafter joined B.E. Mechanical Course in Anna University and gotemployment in the campus interview at Tamil Nadu PetrochemicalsLimited, Manali and studied M.S in SPIC and after serving tenyears at TPL, suddenly he declared that he is Kalki Bhagavan andwould not go for employment and he used to read religious books like'Thevaram', 'Dhiviyabharatham' and would state that his brain waveshave been taken in the computer and being viewed by others and wouldspeak loudly and thereafter she took him to Malar Hospitals on4.8.2003 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 Medicalprescription dated 6.8.2003 in letter pad of Malar Hospitalsmentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu, aged 33 ofAdambakkam, employed in TPL and it is further mentioned in it thaton a voyage of self discovery Kalki; lack of sleep; pain neck;pulling sensation of legs; restlessness; mind being manipulated; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ confusing thinking pattern and being monitored and drugs have beenprescribed. The second document in Ex.D5 (series) is drug prescriptiondated 23.9.2003 prescribed by Dr.Rangarajan to patient Rameshmentioning the names of five drugs. The third document in Ex.D5 (series) is the cash bill dated6.8.2003 of Adayar Drug House mentioning the name of the drug sold. The fourth document in Ex.D5 (series) is a prescriptiondated 23.2.2005 given by Dr.N.Rangarajan to patient Ramesh mentioningthree drugs. Dr.Rangarajan has not been examined by the accused. 22. It is further stated by DW.3 Shanthi that the accusedrefused to take the drug by saying that he is God and hence she tookhim to Coimbatore and showed him to Dr.Balasubramani and he treatedhim and Ex.D6 (series) are the medical record. The first document in Ex.D6 (series) is Appointment Cardof Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited, Avanashi Road,Coimbatore, dated 11.9.2003, mentioning the name of the patient asRamesh Babu and his address as Adambakkam, Chennai and mentioning thename of the Doctor as Dr.Srinivasan, Consultant in PsychologicalMedicine, 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 MedicinePrescription dated 11.9.2003 of Kovai Medical Center and HospitalLimited 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, dated11.9.2003, for having paid the doctor fees to Dr.Srinivasan. Thefifth document in Ex.D6 (series) is Medicine Prescription dated18.9.2003, in which, Dr.Srinivasan had prescribed a drug. The sixthdocument in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated 18.9.2003 ofPharmacy Division, KMCH, Coimbatore mentioning the name of the drugsold to Ramesh Babu. The seventh document in Ex.D6 (series) isCash Bill dated 18.9.2003 for having paid the Doctor Fees toDr.Srinivasan. The eighth document in Ex.D6 (series) is theMedicine Prescription dated 9.2.2005 of KMCH, in which,Dr.Srinivasan has prescribed three drugs to Ramesh Babu. The ninthdocument in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated 9.2.2005 ofPharmacy Division, KMCH mentioning the names of drugs of sold toRamesh Babu. The tenth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Billdated 9.2.2005 of KMCH for having paid Doctor Fees toDr.Srinivasan. At this juncture it is relevant to point out thatDr.Srinivasan was not examined by the accused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. DW.3 Shanthi has further stated that she took the accusedRamesh Babu to Dr.Bashyam for one year and the Doctor declared himfit to go for employment and directed the accused to continuouslytake 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 MentalHospital in the year 1997 and was doing private practice and he hasbeen examined as DW.1. According to DW.1 Dr.Bashyam, the accusedcame to him for the first time for treatment on 2.10.2003 and heexamined him and prescribed five drugs and asked him to take the samefor a period of fifteen days and then to meet him and thereafter heexamined 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 thatwhile the accused was under treatment, he sent him to clinical testand obtained Ex.D2 Report and came to know that the accused washaving paranoid psychosis and he prescribed medicines. The first document in Ex.D1 (series) is the Prescription inletter pad of Dr.Bashyam, dated 2.10.2003, mentioning the name ofthe patient as Ramesh Babu containing the various dates referredabove on which he examined Ramesh Babu and mentioning the names ofthe drugs prescribed on those dates. Document Nos.2 to 4 in Ex.D1 (series) are Cash Bills dated15.10.2003, 20.2.2004, 19.11.2003 of S.S.Chemists Medical Shopmentioning the names of the drugs sold to Ramesh Babu. Documents 5and 6 in Ex.D1 (series) are Bills dated 30.4.2004 and 30.6.2004 ofAppollo Pharmacy mentioning the names of the drugs sold to RameshBabu. 25. Ex.D2 is the Psychological Report dated 24.11.2003 issuedby Mr.S.Balakrishnan, Clinical Psychologist, residing at PlotNo.13/17, Annamalai Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai. In Ex.D2Report, Mr.S.Balakrishnan has mentioned the test findings and in thesummary he has stated that Ramesh Babu is showing significantfeatures of paranoid disorder and there are problems in adjustment inthe area of interpersonal regions and self concept. The author ofEx.D2 Report Mr.S.Balakrishnan has not been examined by the accused.He is not in Government service. Ex.D2 Report came to be markedthrough DW.1 Dr.Bashyam. Though Dr.Bashyam, in his testimony, hasstated that he sent Ramesh Babu to clinical test and obtained Ex.D2Report, there is no mention about the referral of the accused toMr.S.Balakrishnan or receipt of Ex.D2 Report in the first documentin Ex.D1 (series) viz., the prescription letter containing runningnotes of examination of Ramesh Babu on various dates. Dr.Bashyam isa private practitioner and the only medical record pertaining topatient Ramesh Babu maintained by him is the first document in Ex.D1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (series) referred above and if really Ramesh Babu was referred totest, it ought to have been mentioned in the above medical record,but that is not mentioned. In short, nothing about the referraland receipt of report is mentioned in first document in Ex.D1(series). In such circumstances, it is difficult to conclude thatEx.D2 Report is a contemporaneous document which came into existenceat the time when DW.1 Dr.Bashyam treated Ramesh Babu and muchreliance cannot be placed on it. In this context, it isrelevant to point out that DW.1 Dr.Bashyam in his running notes ofexamination in the first document in Ex.D1 (series) has not recordedthat Ramesh Babu was suffering from paranoid psychosis. No suchdiagnosis 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 byhim. 26. DW.1 Dr.Bashyam has categorically stated that the accuseddid not come to him for treatment after 29.6.2004 and he did not knowas to whether the accused took any treatment thereafter and accordingto him, the accused though afflicted with mental illness, could wearproper dress, ride a vehicle and it does not affect his Engineercareer. 27. It is the further testimony of DW.3 Shanthi, mother ofthe accused, that after the treatment by Dr.Bashyam, the accusedwent to Paris in France and employed there and thereafter he returnedhome and refused to take the drugs by saying that he is 'KalkiBhagavan' and she took him to General Hospital, Chennai and showedhim there. Ex.D7 is the O.P. Chit dated 29.6.2005 issued byPsychiatric Division of Government General Hospital, Chennaimentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu and a drug has beenprescribed for ten days in it. It is further stated by DW.3 Shanthithat she went to her daughter's house at Vaniyambadi and stayed thereand she was not in the house at Chennai when the occurrence tookplace and she was telephonically informed about the arrest of theaccused. The above is the evidence let in pertaining to the periodprior to occurrence and the last date on which the accused tooktreatment was 29.6.2005. 28. In so far as the period in and around the time ofoccurrence is concerned, there is no evidence adduced to show thatthe accused was taking medical treatment and was under the care ofdoctor. In fact, the mother of the accused DW.3 Shanthi in hercross-examination has admitted that she did not file any medicalrecord to show that the accused was taking continuous medicaltreatment from 29.6.2005 to 3.2.2007. It is her testimony that shewent to Vaniyambadi and stayed with her daughter and she was not inChennai at the time of occurrence. This shows that the accused wason his own living in the house at Chennai. In this context, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that if reallythe mental condition of the son was not alright, the mother would nothave left him alone in the house and went and resided with thedaughter at Vaniyambadi, assumes significance. 29. The occurrence took place on 26.11.2006 at 4.45 pm in theevening in the premises of St.Thomas Mount Church. As alreadyseen, P.Ws.1 to 3 have witnessed the attack made by the accused withChopper Knife on Jacob. PW.1 Gilbert Mohan in his testimony hasstated that at the time of occurrence the accused was standing furyand took the oozing blood of Jacob and put 'Thilak' on his foreheadwith it. PW.2 Lilly Mary in her testimony has stated that theaccused asked Jacob as to whether the mountain could be given or notand Jacob told him to go and meet the Father and immediately theaccused attacked Jacob and took the oozing blood and put 'Thilak' inhis forehead. She has further stated that the accused did notappear to be insane and he came as a rowdy with ugly look and spokefuriously. PW.3 Adaikalasamy in his testimony has deposed that theaccused appeared cruelly but does not appear to be in disturbed stateof mind. 30. PW.5 Sugumar was present when the accused was enquired bythe Investigation Officer and was also witness for recovery and hehas stated that the accused called himself as 'Kalki Avatar God' andhe did not appear to be a mentally disturbed person and he was foundnormal. The Investigation Officer PW.11 Arockiya Raveendran hasstated that during enquiry, the accused told him that he believedthat he is 'Kalki Bhagavan' and in the documents referred from hishouse, he had put his signature as 'Kalki Ramesh Babu'. Ex.P15is the Inquest Report prepared by the Investigation Officer, inwhich, it is mentioned that the accused asked Jacob as to whether themountain could be given to them or not and Jacob told him that hecannot answer and to go and ask Father and immediately the accusedtook Chopper Knife from the bag and attacked Jacob. 31. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellantcontended that during investigation the history of insanity of theaccused was revealed and still the Investigation Officer did notsubject the accused to medical examination and place the evidencebefore the Court and it creates a serious infirmity in theprosecution case and the benefit has to be given to the accused.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted thatduring investigation, the mother of the accused filed petition dated4.1.2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and orderdated 25.1.2007 was passed to subject the accused for examination andmedical examination of the accused was done at Government MentalHospital, Chennai on various dates and subsequently the mother of theaccused filed another petition before this Court and Order dated23.7.2007 was passed directing psychiatric examination and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused was admitted in the Mental Hospital and was treated by DW.2Dr.Malaiappan who issued Ex.D3 Observation Report and medicalexamination was factually done and there is no infirmity in thisregard. Though the Investigation Officer did not subject theaccused to medical examination, that was practically done pursuantto the orders of the Court at the initiative taken by the mother ofthe accused and evidence is before the Court and hence there is noinfirmity affecting the prosecution case. 32. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is seen that theaccused claimed himself to be 'Kalki Bhagavan' in and around theperiod of occurrence. No evidence was let in to show that themental illness of the accused continued during that period and nomedical record was produced. In this context, it is also relevantto note that no petition under Section 329 Cr.P.C stating that theaccused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making hisdefence was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate or the TrialCourt. 33. The period immediately after the occurrence is concerned,the evidence available is Ex.P19 O.P. Chit of Government MentalHospital, Chennai and the oral testimony of DW.2 Dr.Malaiappancoupled with Ex.D3 Observation Report issued by him. As alreadyseen, on the petition filed by the mother of the accused viz., DW.3Shanthi, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur directed theMental Hospital to examine the accused. Ex.P19 is the O.P. Chit ofthe hospital and as per the entries therein, Dr.R.Radhakrishnan hadexamined the accused on 3.2.2007, 12.2.2007, 3.3.2007, 6.3.2007 and10.3.2007 and psychological assessment has been done and the accusedwas advised to come on 12.3.2007, but he was not brought for furtherobservation. Dr.R.Radhakrishnan has not been examined in the case.In the notings in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit, he has only written that thepatient was observed and presented before unit chief andpsychological assessment has been done and the current status ismentioned as observation, psychometry incomplete and the patientneeds further observation. No document relating to psychologicalassessment referred above is filed. The notings in Ex.P19 O.P.Chit does not reveal any specific mental illness of the patient andthe status of examination remained incomplete. 34. DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan is the Assistant Surgeon, Institute ofMental Health, Kilpauk and he has testified that the accusedRamesh Babu was admitted in the Mental Hospital on 21.8.2007 as in-patient and physical examination and psychiatric examination weredone and he was observed from 21.8.2007 to 5.9.2007 on severaloccasions. Ex.D3 is the Observation Report issued by themcontaining the result of the examination and opinion. They areextracted below for better appreciation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "On Examination he is cooperative, he maintains eyecontact, he is aware of the surroundings. Hisbehaviour, mood, perception, attention, concentration,memory, general information, intelligence were found tobe normal. He answers to questions relevantly to beginwith. 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 preventinghis actions. He believes his Ideas are taken out ofhis brain through electrodes and seen in a computer. Hebelieves clones are being made in the society. Hefirmly believes he created the tsunami in the year 2004.He believes at times his mother is acting on behalf ofpersons against him. His thinking is extensivelyabnormal. He denies having any psychiatric illness.He is not in touch with reality.OPINION:He is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, aMajor Mental Illness. He is presently treated withantipsychotic medications. He requires continuous,long term antipsychotic medications, periodic follow upand treatment by a Psychiatrist."From the above, it is seen that the examination conducted was one ofputting questions to the patient and the answers given byRamesh Babu have been recorded and mentioned as such in Ex.D3Observation Report. Of course, the opinion expressed is thatRamesh Babu is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a major mentalillness. DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan has stated that the accused RameshBabu was first examined in Mental Hospital on 3.2.2007 and hecannot tell as to what was his mental condition before that dateand he cannot also precisely state the period of mental illnessprior to their examination. 35. The burden of proof rests on the accused to prove hisinsanity and it is no higher than which rests upon a party to a civilproceeding. The crucial point for deciding whether the benefit underSection 84 IPC should be given or not, is the material time whenthe offence takes place. 36. In so far as the evidence let in by the accused prior tothe occurrence is concerned, there is no diagnosis that the accusedwas suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. Though DW.1 Dr.Bashyamin the testimony before the Court has stated that he diagnosed theabove mental illness during his treatment in the year 2003-2004 basedon Ex.D2 Psychological Report, no such diagnosis was recorded byhim in the contemporaneous record, in his notes in Ex.D1 (series). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, the author of Ex.D2 Psychological Report Mr.S.Balakrishnanwas not examined and it is already concluded that no reliance can beplaced on the said document. 37. There is no history of psychiatric illness in the familyof the accused. With regard to the evidence adduced subsequent tothe commission of the offence is concerned, the accused wasfirst examined in the Mental Hospital, Chennai on 3.2.2007, morethan two months after the occurrence and even then, no diagnosiswas made as found in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit. Only on 6.9.2007,DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan has expressed opinion that the accused wassuffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that diagnosis was madeafter a period of nine months from the date of occurrence andit cannot be said to be proximate in time to the event. 38. There is no proof adduced by the accused regarding hisstate of mind at the time of commission of the offence. As alreadyseen, the accused after getting treatment, went to Paris in Franceand employed there for sometime in the year 2005 and returned toIndia and did not take any treatment in the year 2006 and there isno evidence to show that the ailment continued and the inference ishe was in fit state of mind. Two days prior to occurrence, hemet PW.4 Mohideen and purchased covers for his Knives and went tothe occurrence place concealing the Chopper Knife in his leather bagand on meeting Jacob, he suddenly pulled it out and cut Jacob withit and when Jacob ran away, the accused chased and caught hold ofhim and indiscriminately cut him with the Chopper Knife in day-lightin the presence of people and ran away with the weapon from theoccurrence place and was subsequently arrested. Thus there wasdeliberation and preparation for the act and it was done in a mannerwhich showed desire to concealment and the accused's consciousnessof guilt by running away from the place to avoid apprehension; allthese facts are material considerations to be borne in mind. 39. The decision in BHOSALE'S CASE (referred above) reliedon by Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case,since the accused therein had a family history of psychiatricillness and he was diagnosed as suffering from ParanoidSchizophrenia prior to the occurrence and he was under regularmedical treatment for the mental illness and those circumstances areabsent in the present case. 40. In the same way, the contention made relying on thedecision in THAKKAR'S CASE (cited supra) that even if the accusedwas not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the timehe committed the offence, the evidence let in, if raises areasonable doubt as regards one or more of the ingredients of theoffence, the accused is entitled for acquittal, is also devoid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of merit since the evidence let in, in the present case, doesnot give room for doubt in the mind of the Court with regard tothe mental ailment of the accused. 41. The other decision in RATAN LAL'S CASE (referred tosupra), 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 thepresent case within the ambit of Section 84 IPC. It is onlyunsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive facultiesof the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminalresponsibility. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusionaffords no protection under Section 84 IPC. The accused hadabnormal behaviour and was under treatment till the beginning ofthe year 2005 and thereafter remained mentally fit. Actuated byreligious fanaticism , he had ventured to attack the victim todeath. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court set outabove, in the background of facts, the present case is not onewhere the protection under Section 84 IPC can be applied.However, as and when the Jail Authorities feel the appellant needstreatment, he should be immediately sent for treatment atGovernment Mental Hospital, Chennai. 43. There are no merits in the Appeal and the same isdismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvksTo1. 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, St.Thomas Mount Police Station,Chennai-600 016. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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-600 104.1 cc To Mr.G.Saravana Kumar, Advocate, SR.45526.Crl.A.No.731 of 2008 BVN(CO)RVL 06.10.2009