Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 91 (MAD)

Thangadurai Nadar v. State

2002-02-11

A.PACKIARAJ, N.DHINAKAR

body2002
Judgment :- N.Dhinakar, J. 1. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as “the accused”, on being tried under Sections 341 and 302, IPC by the learned Principal Sessions Judge was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was acquitted of the change under Section 341, IPC. Hence the appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is this:-P.W.l is the son of the accused and the deceased is the wife of the accused. P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.l. The accused, during the relevant period, was mentally ill and therefore, he was left in the custody of P.W.4, the elder brother of the deceased at Pethanadapatti. P.W.l was working in a radio repair shop at Magizhvannanathapuram. On the date of incident, at about 11.00 am., P.W.2 and the deceased were proceeding to Pethanadapatti for a condolence. At that time, the accused suddenly appeared before the deceased, who is his wife and dashed her head against the wall of a house, which was nearby, as result of which, the deceased sustained head injuries, resulting in blood oozing out from the nose. Information was sent to P.W.1 through P.W.5 . P.W.1, thereafter, arrived at the, scene and finding his mother with injuries, took her to the hospital and produced her before P.W.8 the Duty Medical Officer, Tenkasi Government Hospital. P.W.8, on examining the injured Arunachalavadivu, found the following injuries 1. A laceration measuring 3"x 1" x1" on the right paritetal region. 2. Two lacerations on the occipital. region measuring l"x1/2" x 1/2" and blood was coming through the nose and mouth. 3. A blood clot below the left eye. He issued Ex.P.4, the wound certificate. The doctor also sent intimation, Ex.P.5, to Tenkasi Police Station. 3. P.W.1 1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chatram police station, on receipt of Ex.P.5 from the hospital authorities, proceeded to the hospital on 10.1.1992 and reached it at. 11.00 am. At the hospital, he found the deceased in an unconscious state and therefore, questioned P.W.l, who gave a statement. The said statement was reduced into writing. On the basis of the said statement, he registered a case in Crime No. 7 of 1992 against the accused under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. The copy of the first information report is Ex.P.10. The said statement was reduced into writing. On the basis of the said statement, he registered a case in Crime No. 7 of 1992 against the accused under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. The copy of the first information report is Ex.P.10. P.W.11 after taking up the investigation, proceeded to the scene, where in the presence of P.W.6, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.2. He also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.11. He questioned P.Ws.l to 4 and recorded their statements. In the meantime, Arunachalavadivu, the deceased in the case, breathed her last at 12.20 pm on 15.1.1992 and on receipt of the death intimation, Ex.P.3, the crime was altered to one under Section 302, IPC. The express reports were sent to higher officials. 4. On receipt of the information about the registration of a grave crime, P.W.12, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tenkasi Circle, took up investigation in the case and visited the scene of occurrence and inspected it. He verified the investigation conducted by P.W.11. On 16.1.1992 between 7.00 am and 10.00 am., he conducted inquest over the body of Arunachalavadivu in the presence of panchayatdars, during which, he questioned P.Ws.l to 4 and recorded their statements. Ex, P. 13 is the inquest report. After the inquest, the body was handed over to a police constable with a requisition, Ex.P.6 for conducting autopsy. 5. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.9, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of Arunachalavadivu and found the following ante-mortem injuries:- 1. Multiple healing abrasions ranging from 1 x 1/2 cm to 2 x 1 cm seen on the forehead four in number. 2. 7 cm long sutured incised wound on the right side of head done by surgeon as a part of treatment. On dissection of head, the doctor found extensive bruising of tissues in front and back and haematoma was seen on the right side of skull. He also noticed a burrhole on the temporal bone done by surgeon. The doctor found a fissured fracture over the right frontal parietal and temporal bone. The doctor noticed extradural haematoma on the right side of brain with sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage. He also noticed haemotoma on the base of the brain. He issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased died on account of head injuries. 6. The doctor noticed extradural haematoma on the right side of brain with sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage. He also noticed haemotoma on the base of the brain. He issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased died on account of head injuries. 6. P.W.12, in the meantime, questioned P.Ws.4, 5 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested at 8.00 am on 17.1.1992 and brought to the police station at 7.00 am. On 4.2.1992, P.W.12 issued a requisition, Ex.P.14 to ascertain whether he is suffering from mental illness and thereafter, the accused was examined. He questioned Balagurusamy, the doctor, who examined the accused, and recorded a statement and obtained a certificate (the prosecution neither examined the doctor, Balagurusamy nor the certificate issued by him was marked). After completing investigation the final report was filed against the accused on 18.8.1992. 7. When questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused stated that he was under treatment for his mental illness. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused, since even according to all the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the accused was suffering from mental illness during the relevant period. It is his submission that the accused is entitled for the benefit of Section 84, IPC., which states that nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law. P.Ws.l and 2 are the children of the deceased. They have stated that the accused had no motive to attack the deceased and it was the deceased who is their mother, who was looking after the accused, who was mentally ill and that there was no motive for their father to attack their mother, the deceased in the case. The evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, therefore, show that the accused had no reason or motive to attack the deceased a nd it is the case of the defence that the deceased’s hand was dashed against the wall because the accused was mentally ill during the relevant period. P.Ws. The evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, therefore, show that the accused had no reason or motive to attack the deceased a nd it is the case of the defence that the deceased’s hand was dashed against the wall because the accused was mentally ill during the relevant period. P.Ws. 1 and 2, the children of the deceased, even in their chief-examination stated that their father, the accused in the case, was suffering from mental illness. This admission of P.Ws 1 and 2 is supported by P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation, since in cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused was suffering from menta l illness for about 18 years prior to the date of incident. P.W.12 also gave evidence and stated that on 4.2.1997, he gave a requisition to the Court to send the accused to the doctor for examination to ascertain, whether he is suffering from mental illness and went on to say that he questioned the doctor, Balagurusamy, and recorded a statement. He has also stated in chief-examination that the said Balagurusamy issued a certificate as regards the mental state of the accused. The prosecution, for reasons best known, did not examine the said doctor, Balagurusamy, nor did it produce the certificate issued by him to show that the accused on the date of incident, knew the nature of the act and that he also knew that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. The prosecution had the best opportunity of establishing the said fact, but did not do so. On the contrary, we have the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, which is supported by the investigating officer, P.W.12, that the accused was mentally ill and was referred to the doctor for treatment. In this background, Exs.C.l to C.5 marked in the case assume importance. A perusal of these exhibits shows that the accused was suffering from ‘Schizophrenia’. It can be seen from the evidence of doctor, C.W.1, that the accused was sent from the jail and admitted in the hospital for mental illness and on being examined, it was found by the doctor, Balagurusamy, that the accused was suffering from ‘Schizophrenia’ and that there was spontaneous laughter with incongruent mood. The doctor noticed delusion and hallucination and that he was also suffering from impaired judgment and was lacking insight. The doctor noticed delusion and hallucination and that he was also suffering from impaired judgment and was lacking insight. The symptoms noticed by the doctor Balagurusamy, coupled with the diagnosis that the patient was suffering from ‘Sizohphrenia’, indicate that on the date of incident, the accused was suffering from men tal illness, which fact is supported by the oral evidence of the witnesses including that of the investigating officer, P.W.12. In the above background, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge was not justified in convicting the accused by holding that P.Ws.l and 2, the son and daughter of the accused, did not in their evidence, say that the accused by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he did was either wrong, or contrary to law. When there is a positive evidence of the witnesses, which is also supported by the investigating officer that the accused was suffering from mental illness, the learned Judge ought to have given the benefit of Section 84, IPC to the accused instead of convicting him on the ground that the witnesses did not mention in their evidence that the accused did not know the nature of the act. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his answers were recorded only after a Committee of doctors certified that he is fit to stand for trial. In the above background, the trial Judge, ought not to have taken the answer given by the accused in 313 examination to hold that on the date-when he attacked the deceased, he was not suffering from mental illness. 9. On goingthrough the materials, we find that the accused, on the date of incident, was suffering from mental illness and therefore, he,is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. In view of the discussion made above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, appellant under Section 302, IPC are set aside. The appeal is allowed. 10. It is reported that the accused, appellant is in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. He is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is wanted in connection with any other cases.