LexELAVARASAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 1147
ELAVARASAN
v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2006)
JULY 5, 2011
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 84, 304-11, 307 and 342 - Murder
and attempt to murder - Defence of insanity - Tenability of -
Accused-appellant assaulted
his
wife(PW2)
and C
mother(PW3) with a sharp edged weapon; caused the death
of his 1 ~ year old daughter ('A J and thereafter wrongfully
confined PWs2 and 3 within the house - Plea of insanity set
up by the appellant at the trial rejected - PW3 turned hostile
- Conviction of appellant u/s.302 for murder of 'A' with life
D
sentence, u/s.307 for attempt to murder PW2 with 10 years
RI and u/s.342 with 1 year imprisonment - On appeal, held:
Appellant was guilty of committing culpable homicide of 'A'
and an attempt to commit the murder of PW2, even if the
assault on PW3 is taken as doubtful on account of her turning
E
hostile at the trial and attempting to attribute the injuries
sustained by her to a fall - The fact that the appellant was
working as a government servant and was posted as a
Watchman with no history of any complaint as to his mental
health from anyone supervising his duties, is significant -
F
PW2 who was living with him under the same roof also did
not suggest any ailment afflicting the appellant except
sleeplessness which was diagnosed by the doctor to be the
effect of excessive drinking - Deposition of PW3, that her son
was getting treatment for mental disorder is also much too
G
vague and deficient for this Court to record a findit?g of
unsoundness of mind especially when the witness had turned
hostile - Depositions of the doctors dealt with the mental
health condition of the appellant at the time of the examination
1147
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 10 S.C.R
A
by the doctors and not the commission of the offence which
1s the· relevant point of time for claiming the benefit of s.84
/PC - Insanity 1s a medical cond1t1on that cannot for long be
concealed from fnends and relatives of the person concerned
and m that view of the matter non-production of anyone who
B noticed any irrational or eccentnc behaviour on the part of the
appellant 1s noteworthy - Wntmgs on the inner walls of the
appellant's house did not substantiate the plea of insanity
especially when evidence on record established that
appellant was an alcoho/1c. who could scnbble any message
C or request on the walls of his house while under the influence
of alcohol - Plea of insamty taken by the appellant was thus
neither substantiated nor probabl1sed - The Courts below
were. therefore, 1ust1f1ed m holdtng that the plea of insanity had
not been proved and the burden of proof cast upon the
0 appellant uls.105 of the Evidence Act remamed undischarged
- The High Court also correctly held that the mere fact that
the appellant had assaulted his wife, mother and child was not
ipso facto suggestive of his being an insane person - So, also
the fact that the appellant had not escaped from the place of
occurrence was no reason by itself to declare him to be a
E person of unsound mind incapable of understanding the
nature of the acts committed by him inasmuch as different
md1v1duals react differently to same or similar situations -
Consequently, no reason to alter the conviction or sentence
u/s 342 - Also no reason to interfere with the conviction of
F appellant uls.307 but sentence reduced from 10 years RI to
7 years RI - Conviction of appellant u/s. 302 not. however.
justified and altered to conviction u/s.304 Part-fl a/ongwith 10
years Rt
G
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 84 - Principles governing burden
of proof m cases where the accused pleads an exception -
Defence of insamty - Burden of bringing case uls. 84 /PC -
Standard of proof for discharge of burden uls. 105 - Held. The
burden of bring mg his/her case uls. 84 of /PC lies squarely
H upon tt1e person claiming the benefit of that provision - The
ELAVARASAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 1149
POLICE
standard of proof which the accused has to satisfy for the
A
discharge of the burden cast upon him u/s.105 of the
Evidence Act is not the same as is expected of the
prosecution - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105.
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-11 or 302 - Culpable homicide
without pre-meditation - Accused-appellant caused death of 8
his 1 % year old daughter ('A') - Conviction of appellant ul
s.302 - Justification of - Held On fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.