LexSUDHAKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 873 SUDHAKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2007) OCTOBER 26, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B c ss. 302 and 84 - Murder - Husband inflicting fatal assault on wife with chopper on her neck - Husband claiming defence of insanity - Conviction uls. 302 by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence -All circumstances point 0 towards the guilt of the accused - No evidence that accused was suffering from mental illness at the crucial time as a/so before and after the incident - Evidence. s. 84 - Defence of insanity - Claim of - Held: While claiming such defence, claimant has to prove that his E cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the crime was committed, as not to know the nature of the act. According to the prosecution case, the appellant assaulted his wife with a chopper on her neck in the F bedroom of his house, resulting in her death. The appellant took the defence of insanity. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court. G Therefore, the appellant filed the instant case. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As regards the actual physical murder, all 873 H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20HJ) 12 S.C.R. A the circumstances point towards the guilt of the appellant. PW1 and PW5 clearly stated how the appellant had approached them with a chopper soaked in blood in one hand and his 8 months old son in other arm. The blood stained chopper remained in the possession of the s appellant till he was asked to put the same on the ground. PW1 actually saw the blood stained chopper in the hand of the appellant when he pointed the torchlight on the appellant through the window. After entrusting the child to PW3, the appellant went away. The dead body of his c wife was discovered by the neighbours which was soaked in blood. According to PW3, there was so much blood on the body. The ocular evidence was corroborated by medical evidence. The doctor~PW9 , who conducted the post mortem clearly stated that the injuries 0 found on the body of the deceased could have been caused with the weapon which was. seized from the appellant. Therefore, the courts below correctly concluded that the circumstances lead to the only conclusion that the appellant committed the murder of his E wife. [Paras 14 and .15] [883~A-E] 2.1 In most cases, in India, the defence of insanity seems to be pleaded where the offender is said to be suffering from the disease of Schizophrenia. Section 84 IPC clearly gives statutory recognition to the defence of F insanity. A bare perusal of the Section 84 would show that in order to succeed, the appellant would have to prove that by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. In the alternate case, he would have to prove that G he was incapable of knowing that he was ,doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. [Para 17] [884-D; 885-E- G] !-1 R. vs. Daniel Me Naughten 1843 RR 59: 8ER 718(HL) - referred to. SUDHAKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA 875 Modi's Medicaf,Jurisprudence and Toxicology 23rd edn. A 1077 - referred to. 2.2 The plea taken in the instant case was also that the appellant was suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia". The medical profession would 8 undoubtedly treat the appellant as a mentally sick person. However, for the purposes of claiming the benefit of the defence of insanity in law, the appellant would have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the crime was committed, as not to know C the nature of the act. Thus, the crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 is the time when the offence is committed. [Paras 17 and 19] [884-D-E; 885- D-E; 893-F] 2.3 Regarding the defence under Section 84 IPC, there is no reason to differ with the opinion expressed D by the trial court as also the High Court. The evidence given by DW1, Assistant Surgeon of the Hospital was rightly discarded by the High Court. The entire medical E evidence produced was not sufficient to show that at the time of the commission of the murder the appellant was medically insane and incapable
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.