LexMARIAPPAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 273 MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal AppE!al No. 926 of 2009) APRIL 18, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 84, 299, 302 and 449 - Murder A B - Defence of insanity - Accused-appellant repeatedly assaulted his paternal aunt with a 'aruval' and thereby caused C her death - Conviction of appellant by trial court and High Court - Challenged - Plea of insanity by appellant seeking protection u/s.84 IPC.:... Held: Physical and mental condition of the accused at the time of commission of offence, is paramount for bringing the case within puNiew of s.84- ln the D case on hand, no evidence as to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant-accused at the time of the occurrence - Appellant had coine to the house of the deceased one day prior to the occurrence, demanded money and threatened the deceased of grave consequences and on the next day, when E the demand was not fulfilled, he trespassed into the house, pushed away PWs 1 and 2, bolted the door from inside and inflicted repeated 'aruval' blows on the deceased which resulted into her death - All these aspects also show that at the relevant tiine, appellant was not insane as claimed by him F - Further, appellant was examined as a defence witness and according to the trial Judge, as a witness, he made his statement clearly and cogently and meticulously followed the court proceedings - The trial Judge, after noting appellant's answers in respect of the questions u/s. 313 CrPC concluded G that he could not be termed as an •insane" person - Burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and never shifts, however, existence of circumstances bringing the case within exception uls.84 /PC lies on the accused - Appellant 273 H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 4 S.C.R. A failed to discharge the burden as stated in s. 105 of the Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105. The prosecution case was that on account of a land dispute the accused-appellant repeatedly assaulted his 8 paternal aunt with a 'aruval' and thereby caused her death. The trial court as well as the High Court convicted the appellant under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years under Section 449 of IPC and RI for life for the offence under Section C 302 of IPC. In the instant appeal, the appellant raised the plea of insanity seeking prote~tion under Section 84 of the IPC. The appellant placed reliance on the evidence of DW-1- the Doctor who stated that the accused was suffering D from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The other material relied on in support of the plea of insanity is Ex. D-2, the termination order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi wherein it is stated that the appellant was medically ~nfit for service in CRPF due E to Paranoid Schizophrenia. The question which therefore arose for consideration was whether at the time of the alleged incident, i.e., on 05.11.2001, the accused-appellant was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia'' and, hence, he was entitled to F the benefit of exception under Section 84 of IPC. , Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, from the matetials G analyzed, discussed and concluded by the trial Courtand the High Court, it is clearly established that it was the accused-appellant who committed the murder. [Para 8] [281-E] 2: Section 84 IPC makes it clear that a person, who, H at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness· of MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 275 mind, commits anything, he is permitted to claim the A above exception. In other words, insanity or unsoundness of mind are the stages when a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or unable to understand what is wrong or right and must relate to the period in which the offence has been committed. Further 8 Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that though the burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and never shifts, however, the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception under Section 84 IPC lies on the accused. On C a reading of Sections 84 and 299 IPC and Sections 105 and 101 9f the Evidence Act, it is clear that "when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, the burden of proof lies on that person". At the time of commission of offence, the physical and mental condition of the person concern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.