Madras High Court · 2025

CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022IPC. On completion of the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and the same was taken on file as P.R.C No.6 of 2018. After completing the formalities, since the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni and it was taken on file as SC No.72 of 2018 and thereafter, the same was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, for disposal. 4.After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, since there were prima facie materials to frame a charge against the accused, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 5.In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW14 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12, besides 10 material objects were marked as MO1 to MO10. 6.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against her from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 20227.After completing the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced her to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 8.Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused, as appellant. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts; the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the appellant is a mentally retarded person and has erred in relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3, which is artificial and unnatural; and the prosecution has totally suppressed the injures sustained by the accused at the time of the occurrence; PW2 has clearly deposed that during the scuffle, the appellant/accused also sustained injury and blood was coming out from her body, so the very origin and genesis of the prosecution is highly doubtful; the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the report of the forensic and chemical analysis did not support the case of the prosecution; and the evidence of the Investigating Officer is totally contradictory to PW1 to PW3 evidence and there was no explanation from the prosecution side regarding the 4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022accused state of mind and admittedly, she is unsound mind; the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the Doctor while giving evidence in Cr.M.P No.1459 of 2017 has deposed that the accused was mentally unfit and she is behaving differently for more than 10 years prior to the occurrence and she was totally incapable of giving effective evidence, but the Investigating Officer did not investigate anything about the unsound mind of the accused; the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the ingredients of Section 302 IPC would not attract against the appellant/accused since there was no premeditation or intention to cause the murder; the prosecution has not recovered the wooden stick, which was admittedly taken by the deceased to attack the accused and failure to recover the same would be fatal to the prosecution case. 10. The learned counsel would further submit that the accused was suffering with mental illness and the trial Court has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 328 Cr.P.C; even at the time of the occurrence and subsequently, during remand and even during the trial also the accused was mentally unsound and that has not be considered by the trial Court and so, the conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC is perverse and therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appeal has to be allowed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Prakash Nayi alias Sen Vs. State of Goa [(2023)5 SCC 673]. 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 202211.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PW1 to PW3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have spoken about the overt act attributed against the appellant and after remand, the appellant was in jail, and the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order under Section 328 Cr.P.C and conducted an enquiry and referred the appellant to the Medical Board to know the mental condition of the appellant and subsequently, the trial Court was satisfied with the mental capacity of the appellant and the appellant also did not raise any defence of mental illness that she is not fit to face trial; Even during 207 Cr.P.C Proceedings, at the time of framing of charge and also during questioning under Section 313 Cr.PC., she has not raised such a defence that she was not capable of understanding the trial proceedings and under these circumstances, at the appellate stage, the appellant cannot raise such a defence during the trial that she was mentally unsound and suffering from schizophrenia and the eyewitnesses are the husband and children of the appellant and the appellant also gave confession statement and recovery was also effected; The Doctor, who conducted postmortem has clearly spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the biological report also tallied with the injuries found on the body of the deceased; since the prosecution has proved the motive behind the murder and the specific overt act also established through the eyewitnesses and some medical and scientific evidence also tallied with each other and no material has been produced to show that during trial, the appellant was mentally unsound, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court 6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022warrants no interference of this Court and there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.12.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.13.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 29/03/2017 at about 09.00 am, the deceased Alaguraja had a quarrel at his house with his brother Sivakumar in connection with the use of laptop and at that time, the accused, who is the mother of the siblings, prevented the quarrel between them and at that time, the deceased Alaguraja took a stick and beat the accused on her head and came out of the house immediately and was standing near a thatched shed in front of his house and subsequently, the accused took a sickle and repeatedly gave a cut on the head of the deceased and due to which, he fell down and died on the spot itself.14.The appellant is none other than the mother of the deceased. PW1 is none other than the husband of the appellant and father of the deceased. PW2 and PW3 are also relatives of the deceased. On the date of the occurrence, since the siblings had quarrelled with each other while seeing a picture in the laptop, the appellant warned the deceased and at that time, the deceased attacked the appellant with a stick on her head and so, the appellant got enraged and took the sickle and attacked the deceased on his head repeatedly and due to this, he 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022sustained injuries and died on the spot itself. Therefore, PW1, who is the husband of the appellant and father of the deceased gave a complaint before the respondent Police and they registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2017 under Section 302 IPC. 15.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, the father of the deceased was examined as PW1. He has stated about the motive, occurrence and also the specific overt act. PW2 is the brother of the deceased. He has also spoken about the motive and the occurrence. His evidence is also corroborated with PW1's evidence. PW3 is the sister of the deceased, who has also spoken about the motive and overt act. Her evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW4, PW5 and PW6 are the hearsay witnesses. PW4 has spoken about the arrest of the appellant and recording of the statement and recovery of the material objects. 16.PW12 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and through him, the postmortem report (Ex.P9), final opinion (Ex.P10) and viscera report (Ex.P11) were marked. PW10 is the Scientific Officer working in the Forensic Department and he has spoken about the forensic analysis and the Biological report (Ex.P6) and Serological report (Ex.P7). 8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 202217.A reading of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, recovery witness, the medical witness and the expert witness shows that although the prosecution has proved that the appellant who caused the injuries to her son and that his death was due to the injuries sustained by him, it is a peculiar case, the appellant is the mother of the deceased and the defacto complainant is her husband and father of the deceased. 18. It is the case of the prosecution that a quarrel and fight occurred between two siblings over the use of a laptop, both of whom are sons of the appellant. P.W.1 is the husband of the appellant. The appellant, who is the mother of siblings, warned them and pulled the deceased out side the house. Therefore, the deceased immediately took a stick from a nearby place and attacked the mother on her head. Since the appellant got enraged, she took sickle and also caused a cut injury on the head of the deceased, who is her son. Therefore, two things have to be analyzed in this case. One is that the deceased is an aggressor and another is due to sudden provocation, the appellant attacked the deceased. So, the offence committed by the appellant does not fall under Section 302 IPC, but falls under Section 304 IPC. 19. Further, one of the defences taken by the appellant is that she is a mentally retarded person, both at the time of occurrence and during trial. Therefore, if the appellant was mentally unsound at the time of occurrence, the 9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022offence, either Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC could not be made out against her. So, the offence committed by the appellant falls only under Section 84 IPC and she is not an offender, since at the time of the occurrence, she was not aware of the consequence falling under exception, or, if at all, the appellant was not in a fit state of mind and was suffering from mental illness and the procedure followed by the trial Court was vitiated under Section 328 Cr.P.C. Since at the time of trial, the appellant was not in sound state of mind, the trial should have been postponed, until the appellant became normal. However, in this case, from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, there is no material to show that at the time of the occurrence, the appellant was suffering from mental illness. However, after arrest, based on the complaint made by the defence counsel, the Judicial Magistrate conducted an enquiry regarding the mental condition of the appellant and found that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia and referred the appellant to the mental health care hospital and thereafter, the appellant proceeded with her case in SC No.72 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC. However, during 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, no steps were taken. Even at the time of trial also, on the side of the defence, no steps were taken to put a suggestion to PW1 to PW3 regarding the mental condition of the appellant. However, the defence did put a suggestion about the mental illness of the appellant before the Investigating Officer. Further, at the time of 313 Cr.P.C proceedings, the appellant was questioned and the same was recorded by the trial Court, which shows that she did not state anything. However, on the basis of the unmarked 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022documents, the trial Court referred the appellant to the Medical Board and stated that during 313 Cr.P.C Proceedings the behaviour of the appellant was abnormal. 20.The Judicial Magistrate has passed an order, dated 20/04/2017 in Crl.M.P No.1459 of 2017 under Section 328 Cr.P.C and referred the appellant to the Medical Health Care Hospital. The order reads as under:- cj;juT1.njd;fiu fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;.229/2017 gpupT 302 ,jr tof;fpd; Fw;wQ;rhl;lg;gl;l eguhd Ngr;rp vd;fpw Ngr;rpak;khs; vd;gtu; kJiu kj;jpa ngz;fs; rpiwapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;lNghJ kdeyk; Fd;wpajhf fUjg;gl;L kUj;Jt rpfpr;irf;F cj;jutplf;Nfhup ng.j.rp.k.912/2017 vz; %yk; fbjk; fpilf;fg;ngw;wJ. mjd;gb 31.03.2017-k; Njjp Nkw;gb Fw;wQ;rhl;lg;gl;l egiu cs;Nehahspahf mDkjpj;J cupa rpfpr;ir toq;fp gupNrhjid nra;a cj;juT toq;fg;gl;lJ. mjd;gb kJiu uh[h[p muR kUj;Jtf; fy;Y}up kUj;Jtkidapy; kdey gpupT cjtp gpupT Nguhrpupau; jpU.tp];tehjd; vd;gtu; Fw;wQ;rhl;lg;gl;l egiu gupNrhjid nra;J cupa rpfpr;irfs; toq;fp mtUf;F tof;fpid jpwd;gl elj;Jtjw;F Gj;jp Rthjpdk; ,y;iy vd jdJ kUj;Jt mwpf;ifia ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F mDg;gpdhu;. mjid ngw;W 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022,e;ePjpkd;wk; gpupT 328F.tp.K.rgbahf tprhuizf;F cj;jutplg;gl;lJ.2.,k;kDtpy; Fw;wQ;rhl;lg;gl;l egUf;F Gj;jp Rthjpdk; cs;sjh? ,y;iyah? vd;gij mwpAk; nghUl;L kUj;Jtiu tprhuiz nra;a miog;ghiz mDg;gg;gl;L ,d;iwajpdk; kUj;Jtu; jpU.tp];tehjd; mtu;fs; M[u; nra;ag;gl;lhu;. mtuJ rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; kUj;Jt gupNrhjid mwpf;ifapd;gbAk; Ngr;rp vd;fpw Ngr;rpak;khspd; fztiuAk;> Ngr;rpak;khisAk; tprhupj;jjpypUe;J mtu; kdNehahy; ghjpf;fg;gl;bUg;gJ njupatUfpwJ. 3.vdNt Nkw;gb Ngr;rp vd;fpw Ngr;rpak;khis kdey kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpj;J cupa rpfpr;irfs; toq;fp mtu; tof;if elj;Jtjw;F VJthd kdepiy kw;Wk; Gj;jp Rthjpdj;jpw;F te;j gpwF M[u; gLj;j NfhUtJjhd; ePjpapd; eyDf;F cfe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. vdNt kdeyk; ghjpf;fg;gl;l Ngr;rp vd;fpw Ngr;rpak;khis mtuJ kdeyk; rupahFk; tiu kdey kUj;Jtkid nrd;idapy; cs;Nehahspahf mDkjpj;J rpfpr;ir toq;f gpupT 330 F.tp.K.r.tpd;fPo; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpLfpwJ.12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 202221.Thereafter, one Karupaiah the father of the appellant, filed Crl.MP No.2495 of 2017 under Section 397 Cr.P.C seeking custody of his daughter, wherein the Judicial Magistrate passed an order, dated 17/07/2017 as under:-cj;juTvjpup jug;gpy; ,k;kDit gpupT 330d; fPo; njd;fiu fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;.229/2017 rl;lg;gpupT 302 IPCd; fPo; ,t;tof;fpy; ifJ nra;ag;gl;L vjpupahdtu; fle;j 20.04.2017.k; Njjpapy; ,Ue;J jw;rkak; tiu mtUf;F kdepiy ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhy; nrd;id madthuk; G+e;jky;yp Nuhl;by; cs;s cs;Siw kUj;Jtu; fhg;gfj;jpy; ,Ue;J rpfpr;ir ngw;W tUfpwhu; vd;Wk;> vdNt ,e;j vjpupia kDjhu; ghJfhg;gpy; xg;gilj;jhy; nghJkf;fs; kw;Wk; cwtpdu;fSf;F ahnjhU Jd;gKk; JauKk; Vw;glhjtifapy; ghu;j;Jf; nfhs;fpnwd; vd;Wk;> Nkw;gb tof;fypUe;J vjpupia ghJfhg;gpy; tpLtpf;f Ntz;b ,k;kDit jhf;fy; nra;Js;shu; vd;Wk;> NkYk; vjpup jug;gpy; ,t;tof;fhdJ vjpupf;F vjpuhf ngha; Gfhu;> thf;F%yj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; vjpup ,t;tof;fpd; vjpupahf Nru;f;fg;gl;Ls;shu; vd;W vjpup jug;G fw;wwpe;j tof;fwpQu; jdJ thjj;jpd;NghJ kDtpy; $wpAs;shu;.13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022 khwhf vjpu;kDjhuu; jug;gpw;F mwptpg;G nfhLf;fg;gl;L gjpy; ngwg;gl;lJ. gjpy; mwptpg;gpy;> vjpupahdtu; kdepiy rupapy;yhj epiyapy; kJiu uh[h[p muR kUj;Jtkid kUj;Jthpd; MNyhridapd; Ngupy; ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd; gb nrd;id kdey kUj;Jtupd; kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;irapy; ,Ue;J tUfpwhu; vdNt Nkw;gb vjpupia kDjhuu; trk; ghJfhg;gpy; xg;gilf;f Ml;Nrgid njuptpf;fpNwd; vd;W gjpy; kDtpy; $wpAs;sdu;.,Ujug;G thjq;fis Nfl;Lk; kw;Wk; vjpu;kDjhuu; gjpy; Mfpatw;iw guprPypj;Jk; tof;fpd; jd;ik kw;Wk; R+o;epiyfis fUj;jpy; nfhz;Lk; ,J Fwpj;J F.tp.K.r.gpupT 330d; gb For section 330 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely.-(1) Whenever a person if found, under section 328 or Section 329, to be incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be shall, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not, order release of such person on bail:Provided that the accused is suffering from unsoundness of 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022mind or mental retardation which does not mandate in-patient treatment and a friend or relative undertakes to obtain regular out-patient psychiatric treatment from the nearest medical facility and to prevent from doing injury to himself or to any other person.(2)If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, bail cannot be granted or if an appropriate undertaking is not given, he or it shall order the accused to be kept in such a place where regular psychiatric treatment can be provided, and shall report the action taken to the State Government: Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987).(3) Whenever a person is found under Section 328 or Section 329 to be incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall keeping in view the nature of the act committed and the extent of unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, further determine if the release of the accused can be ordered:Provided that-15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022(a) if on the basis of medical opinion or opinion of a specialist, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, decide to order discharge of the accused, as provided under Section 328 or Section 329, such release may be ordered, if sufficient security is given that the accused shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person;(b) if the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, is of opinion that discharge of the accused cannot be ordered, the transfer of the accused to a residential facility for persons of unsound mind or mental retardation may be ordered wherein the accused may be provided care and appropriate education and training.NkNy Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s gpupt 330 F.tp.K.r-tpd; gb cs;Nehahspahf rpfpr;irapy; ,Uf;Fk; Gj;jp RthjPdkw;wtu; mtuJ rpfpr;ir KbTw;w gpwF jhd; jf;fgb ghJfhg;G NfhUgtupd; ghJfhg;Gf;F toq;f ,aYk;. vdNt ,e;epiyapy; ngz;fs; kdey kUj;Jtkidapy; cs;Nehahspahf rpfpr;irapy; ,Ue;J tUk; vjpupia gpupT 330 F.tp.K.rtpd; gb ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuupd; ghJfhg;gpy; guhkupg;G toq;f ,ayhJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ.22.Against that order, the father of the appellant, filed revision in Cr.RP No.13 of 2017 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022Periyakulam, that was dismissed, on 12/02/2018. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-'....mjhtJ xU egu; 328 my;yJ 329 gpuptpd; fPo; kdepiy ghjpf;fg;gl;L mtuhy; vjpu;thjk; nra;a Kbahj epiyapy; xU egu; ,Ue;jhy;> ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; ePjpkd;wNkh my;yJ NtW ve;j ePjpkd;wNkh Nkw;gb tof;fhdJ gpizapy; tplf;$ba tof;F my;yJ ,y;iy vd;whYk; Nkw;gb egiu gpizapy; tplyhk; vd;Wk; Mdhy; mg;NghJ kdepiy ghjpf;fg;gl;l vjpupf;F cs;spUg;G rpfpr;ir fl;lhak; Njitg;glhj epiyapy; ,Uf;f Ntz;Lk;. kw;Wk; mtUila ez;gNu my;yJ cwtpdNuh ntspNehahspahf mUfpy; cs;s kUj;Jtkidapy; njhlu;e;J kdepiy rpfpr;ir mspg;gjhfTk;> NkYk; kdepiy ghjpf;fg;gl;l vjpup jdf;F jhNdh my;yJ kw;w egu;fSf;Nfh fhak; Vw;gLtjpypUeJ ghJfhg;Ngd; vd;W cWjpnkhop mspf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; mt;thW cj;jutplyhk; vd;gJ Nkw;gb gpuptpypUe;J njupfpwJ. Mdhy; jhth tof;if ghu;itapLk; NghJ Vw;fdNt vjpupia gpizapy; nry;y cj;jutplg;gl;L gpizKwpAk; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ njupfpwJ. ,t;tof;fpd; vjpupf;F cs;spUg;G rpfpr;ir Njitapy;iy vd;gjhf kUj;Jtrhd;W vJTk; mspf;fg;gltpy;iy. NkYk; ,e;j tof;fpd; vjpupahdtu; 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022mtuJ nrhe;j kfidNa nfhiy nra;jjw;fhf ifJ nra;ag;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; mtu; jdf;F jhNdh my;yJ kw;wtu;fSf;Nfh fhak; Vw;gLj;jhky; ,Ug;ghu; vd;gJ rk;ge;jkhfTk;> kDjhuu; jug;gpy; cWjp vJTk; mspf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJ njupfpwJ. vdNt FtpKr 330-gb gpupT cs;Nehahspahf ,Uf;Fk; vjpup Gj;jp RthjPdkw;wtu; mtuJ rpfpr;ir KbTw;w gpd;du; jhd; kDjhuUf;F mtUila ghJfhg;ig toq;f ,aYk;. jw;NghJ vjpupapd; ghJfhg;ig ,k;kDjhuUf;F toq;f ,ayhJ vd;W tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; KbT nra;Js;sjpy; jtNwJk; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; Nkw;gb cj;jutpy; FWf;fPL nra;a Njitapy;iy vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJtjhy; ,r;rPuha;T kDit js;Sgb nra;J cj;jutplg;gLtNj epahakhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;gjhy; mt;thNw ,g;gpur;rpid rk;ge;jkhf jPu;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ.23.Subsequently, the trial Court referred the matter for Medical Board. The Medical board also passed an order, dated 08/04/2019 which reads as under:-kjpg;gpw;Fupa mk;ikaPu;>jq;fspd; Mizg;gb> ghu;itapy; fz;Ls;s egu; jpUkjp. Ngr;rpak;khs;> taJ 35 ngz;> 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022j.ng.fUg;igah> mtu;fs; 25.3.2019 Kjy; 05.4.2019 tiu cs;Nehahspahf kdeyg; gpuptpy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;lhu;.mtUf;F kdey kw;Wk; cstpay; rpfpr;irfs; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;ld. mtUf;F jPtpu kdNeha;fspy; xU tifahd kdr;rpijT(Schizophrenia) Nehapd; mwpFwpfs; cs;sJ vd;gJ jq;fspd; Nkyhd ghu;itf;F Vw;fdNt njupag;gLj;jg;gl;lJ. mtUf;F rpfpr;irapd; gydhf> cwf;fk;> Nfhgk;> re;Njfk; Nghd;w mwpFwpfspy; ey;y Kd;Ndw;wk; Vw;gl;lJ. ,Ug;gpDk; mwpthw;wy; rhu;e;j khWghLfspy; (Cognitive deficits) Kd;Ndw;wk; FiwthfNt cs;sJ. ePz;l fhykhf Neha; ,Ug;gjhYk;> ntFehl;fshf rpfpr;irf;F cl;glhky; ,Ue;jjjhYk;> ,tw;wpy; Kd;Ndw;wk; tUtjw;fhd rhj;jpak; mupjhfNt cs;sJ. NkYk;> Nehahspapd; FLk;gr;R+o;epiy fhuzkhf cs;Nehahspahf rpfpr;iriaj; njhlu ,ayhikiaj; njuptpj;jdu;. vdNt> mtu; njhlu;e;J GwNehahspahf kUj;Jt rpfpr;ir vLj;Jf;nfhs;SkhW gupe;Jiuf;fg;gl;lJ vd;gij jq;fspd; Nkyhd ghu;itf;F njupag;gLj;JfpNwd;.''24.Thereafter, the trial commenced and concluded on 06/02/2019. During the 313 Cr.P.C questioning, there was no complaint. However, the trial Court referred the appellant to the Medical Board, since it found that the appellant’s behaviour was abnormal. Even during 313 Cr.P.C proceedings, the 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022defence counsel did not make any complaint regarding the mental illness of the appellant and so, the trial was concluded. 25. However, a combined reading of the entire materials shows that the appellant is the mother of the deceased and if the mental capacity of the mother were normal, certainly she ought not to have attacked her own son with sickle and cause fatal injury. Considering the entire materials, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant was mentally sound and the conduct of the appellant was also normal and her attitude was also not shown suspicious. Even the medical records show the history of the appellant indicating that she is mentally retarded. The Medical Board’s order dated 08.04.2019 shows that since the illness has been persisting for a long period and remained untreated for several days, the possibility of recovery or improvement is extremely remote. Therefore, considering the relationship between the appellant and the deceased and the natural course of conduct of the appellant, the manner in which she attacked her own son with sickle is highly doubtful. When two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused must be taken into consideration by giving the benefit of doubt. In this case, subsequent medical records and the behaviour of the appellant creates serious doubt as to whether on the date of the occurrence, the appellant was in a fit state of mind and understood the offence committed by her. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant was in a fit state of mind. It is to be noted that throughout the trial, the appellant was not in a sound state of mind. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is to be extended in favour of the appellant. 26.Further, at this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Nayi alias Sen Vs. State of Goa reported in (2023)5 SCC 673, wherein in para 12, it has been held as follows:-“12.We wish to place reliance on the classical decision of this Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563), wherein the Court held that: (AIR p.1568. Para 7):“7.The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions:- (1)The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.(2)There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code, 1860, the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022relevant evidence – oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.(3)Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including means rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.”27.So, the offence committed by the appellant falls under Section 84 of IPC since at the time of the incident, she was not in a sound state of mind. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was in a fit state of mind Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.28.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022levelled against her. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged. Any fine paid shall be refunded to her. The respondent Police is directed to produce the appellant before the Medical Board and after getting the medical fitness certificate about her mental condition, if the family members of the appellant are ready to take care of the appellant, the respondent Police may hand over the appellant, either to her husband or children, who are willing to take care of the appellant. In case, the Medical Board gives the Medical Certificate stating that the appellant is not in sound state of mind, she may be referred to the Mental Health Care Hospital for treatment. 29.With the above said directions, this criminal appeal stands allowed. (P.V.,J) (L.V.G.,J) 18/12/2025Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No er 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022To1.TheAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, Theni District .2.The Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station, Theni District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4. The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. 24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)No.506 of 2022P.VELMURUGAN,J.andL.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.erCrl.A(MD)No.506 of 202218/12/202525/25