Judgment :- S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Mr.R.Maruthu @ Maruthupandian, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.13 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Mahila Court], Pudukottai, stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 302 [five counts] and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, by Judgment dated 23.01.2012, has convicted the accused under Sections 323 and 302 [five counts] of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 302 [five counts] of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court has imposed death penalty. 2. After having imposed the said punishment, the Trial Court has submitted the proceedings to this Court for confirmation, as provided in Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said reference is now before this Bench in R.T.(MD).No.1 of 2012. In the meanwhile, the accused has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.136 of 2012 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him. The said Criminal Appeal has also been tagged with R.T.(MD).No.1 of 2012, and thus, they are before this Bench for disposal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The accused hails from Melachivapuri Village in Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukkottai District. Five years prior to the occurrence, he was married to one Vijaya Bhama. After the said marriage, on account of the job, he settled down with his wife in Thirupur. In the meanwhile, out of the said wedlock, a male child was born to them. Thereafter, there arose misunderstanding between the accused and his wife and as a result, she deserted him and went to her parental home near Pattukottai. The accused was, thus, residing alone at Thirupur for some more time. His parents also did not take care of him. He begun to use Ganja and to take liquors. Then, he returned to his native place – Melachivapuri. Even to meet out his every day expenditure and food, he had no money. He used to seek monetary help from the villagers for food. Virtually, he was begging, and therefore, the villagers did not respect him. Obviously, he was suffering from mental illness. 3.1. Then, he returned to his native place – Melachivapuri. Even to meet out his every day expenditure and food, he had no money. He used to seek monetary help from the villagers for food. Virtually, he was begging, and therefore, the villagers did not respect him. Obviously, he was suffering from mental illness. 3.1. While so, on 08.06.2009, he requested Mr.S.Manikandan, PW-7 to part with money. PW-7 did not give money. Therefore, he developed quarrel with PW-7. Since the act of the accused became unbearable to the villagers, in order to get rid off from his menace, the villagers, forcibly boarded him in a bus bound for Thirupur and gave money for the ticket to the conductor with a request to the conductor to leave him in Thirupur. After some distance, he got down from the bus and returned to the Village. 3.2. On 19.06.2009, at 08.30 AM, at Melachivapuri Pillaiyar Kovil Street, in front of the house of one Meena @ Meenakshi - PW-1, the accused chased PW-1 and the deceased – Sukumari, [hereinafter referred to as "D-1"] and PW-9 – Sigappai. At that time, the accused shouted at PW-1 in filthy language as to why she was giving protection to PW-7. Then, he kicked PW-1 and PW-9 and also attacked them with a wooden log. In the same transaction, it is alleged that the accused attacked D-1 with the wooden log on her head. D-1 sustained injuries on her head, fell down and died instantaneously. PW-1 and one Meenakshi attempted to catch hold of the accused. But, the accused rushed towards the house of one Saroja, [hereinafter referred to as "D-2"] and attacked her on her head with the same wooden log. D-2 sustained injuries on her head, fell down and died instantaneously. 3.3. Then, the accused ran towards Kannadikkara Street, where, on seeing one Mr.Gopal, [hereinafter referred to as "D-3], the accused attacked him with the same wooden log on his head. D-3 sustained injuries on his head, fell down and died instantaneously. 3.4. Then, he proceeded further and on seeing one Mr.Azhagan, [hereinafter referred to as "D-4"], attacked him with the very same wooden log on his head. D-4 sustained injuries on his head, fell down and died instantaneously. 3.5. Then, he ran towards Chokkappa Chettiar Veethi in the same village, where he found one Mr.Mani Chettiar, [hereinafter referred to as "D-5"], near a public tab. D-4 sustained injuries on his head, fell down and died instantaneously. 3.5. Then, he ran towards Chokkappa Chettiar Veethi in the same village, where he found one Mr.Mani Chettiar, [hereinafter referred to as "D-5"], near a public tab. On seeing him, he attacked him with the very same wooden log on his head. He sustained injuries on his head, fell down and died instantaneously. In the same transaction, the accused threatened the villagers by using abrasive language so as to intimidate them. 3.6. After the occurrence, the accused was taken into custody by PW-22 and PW-23, the villagers and they handed him over to PW-10, the then Village Administrative Officer, Melachivapuri Village. At the time when the accused was so produced, PW-10 found the dress worn by the accused stained with blood extensively. When PW-10 enquired the accused, he told him that he had murdered five persons. Then, he also told PW-10 that since nobody was respecting him, he had attacked the victims. The accused was then possessing the wooden log also. PW-10 informed [PW-37], the Inspector of Police, about the same. 3.7. After the said occurrence, PW-1 proceeded to Ponnamaravathy Police Station and preferred a complaint, EX-P1. PW-34 was the then Sub – Inspector of Police in-charge of the Ponnamaravathy Police Station. On 19.06.2009, at 11.30 AM, on the complaint of PW-1, he registered a case in Crime No.123 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P26 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded EX-P1 and EX-P26 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam. He forwarded PW-1 with a police memo to the hospital for treatment. 3.8. PW-37, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the Ponnamaravathy Police Station, took up the case for investigation. At 12.15 PM, in the presence of PW-12 and one Muthiah, he prepared an Observation Mahazer in respect of the five places, where the deceased were attacked and the dead bodies were lying. He also prepared a Rough Sketch [EX-P30] showing the place of occurrence. 3.9. On receiving information from PW-10 that the accused had been detained at the office of PW-10, PW-37 rushed to the office of PW-10 and arrested him. PW-37 recovered the bloodstained wooden log, which was handed over to him by PW-10 at 01.30 PM. At that time, the accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW10 and PW-11. 3.9. On receiving information from PW-10 that the accused had been detained at the office of PW-10, PW-37 rushed to the office of PW-10 and arrested him. PW-37 recovered the bloodstained wooden log, which was handed over to him by PW-10 at 01.30 PM. At that time, the accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW10 and PW-11. PW-11 is a Village Assistant working under PW-10. The accused was, later on, taken to the Ponnamaravathy Police Station and kept in the lock up. 3.10. Then, PW-37, at 01.30 PM, conducted inquest on the body of D-1 in the presence of panchayatars and prepared EX-P32, Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the dead body of D-1 to Ponnamaravathy Government Hospital for postmortem. 3.11. On the same day, at 03.00 PM, PW-37 conducted inquest on the body of D-4 in the mortuary of the Government Hospital at Ponnamaravathy. EX-P33 is the Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the dead body to Ponnamaravathy Government Hospital for postmortem. 3.12. On the direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-36, the then Inspector of Police, attached to K.Pudupatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District, conducted inquest on the body of D-2 and prepared Inquest Report, EX-P27. On the same day, at 01.30 PM, he conducted inquest on the body of D-5 in the presence of the panchayatars. EX-P28 is the Inquest Report. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of D-3 at 03.00 PM on the same day at the mortuary of Government Hospital, Ponnamaravathy. EX-P29 is the Inquest Report. He handed over the Inquest Report to PW-37 for further investigation. During the above inquest proceedings, he examined PW-3 PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-18 and recorded their statements. Then, he handed over the above records to PW-37 for further investigation. 3.13. PW-37 recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth from all the five places, where the deceased were attacked and also the sample earth under the different mahazers in the presence of the witnesses. At 07.30 PM, on the same day, he recovered the bloodstained clothe worn by the accused in the presence of PW-10 and PW-11. He examined few more witnesses and recorded their statements. On 20.06.2009, he forwarded the accused to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, for judicial remand and forwarded all the Material Objects recovered to the Court. 3.14. He examined few more witnesses and recorded their statements. On 20.06.2009, he forwarded the accused to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, for judicial remand and forwarded all the Material Objects recovered to the Court. 3.14. PW- 28 conducted autopsy on the body of D-1 and found the following injuries:- "1. Laceration 2 X 1 X 1 CM over the left eyebrow. 2. Laceration 3 X 1 X 0.5 CM over the Right parieto – fronta area of scalp. No signs of decomposition. General appearance do tally with police report. Eyelieds-closed, mouth-closed. Tongue inside the mouth. Ears-Normal, Bleeding nose. Swollen both eyes. Extermities – fracture middle third (Left) humerus whole thickness fracture with surrounding haematoma, fracture (Left) ring finger-proximal phalanx (crack fracture) peritoneal cavity Normal. Ribs-intact. Heart-empty chambers. Lungs – pale Hyoid Bone-intact. Stomach& Contents empty chambers. Lungs – pale Hyoid Bone – intact. Stomach & Contents – empty, pale Liver-pale. Spleen-Pale. Kidney-pale. Intestine-empty. Bladder empty. Uterus-Normal. Spinal Cord – normal. Brain – diffuse haematoma 6 X 5 CM over the right parietal lobe of cerebrum." The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have of injury to vital organ-brain. 3.15. PW-30, Dr.Menaka, conducted autopsy on the body of D-2 and found the following injuries:- "1. A leceration (5X4X3cm) over Left Parietal area, 2. A Laceration (5X3X3CM) over occipital area. Brain matter was seen through the wound. No signs of decomposition. General appearance. Do tally with police report. Eyelieds closed, mouth and lips. Normal Tongue inside the mouth. Ears: normal. Generative organs Normal. Extremities: Fracture of lower 1/3 of (left) humerus, whole thickness fracture with surrounding hematoma." PW-30 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ. 3.16. PW-29, Dr.C.Senthilkumar, conducted autopsy on the body of D-3 and found the following injuries:- "1. Sutured wound length 6 cm left frontal area of scalp. 2. Abrasion 2 X 1 CM right knee joint. 3. Abrasion 2 X 1 CM left knee joint. 4. Contusion 4 X 3 CM right ankle joint. Signs of decomposition – No signs of decomposition. General appearances – do tally with police report. Diffuse Haematoma 4 X 3 cm over the left frontal lobe of cerebrum." PW-29 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ. 3.17. PW-28, Dr.K.Saravanan, conducted autopsy on the body of D-4 and found the following injuries:- "1. Signs of decomposition – No signs of decomposition. General appearances – do tally with police report. Diffuse Haematoma 4 X 3 cm over the left frontal lobe of cerebrum." PW-29 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ. 3.17. PW-28, Dr.K.Saravanan, conducted autopsy on the body of D-4 and found the following injuries:- "1. Laceration 3X2X1 cm over right leg. 2. Laceration 8 X 2 cm over the forehead. No signs of decomposition. General appearance do tally with police report. Eyes-black, Swollen. Mouth closed. Bleeding both ears, generative organs-normal. Scrotum – Normal. Heart empty. Peritoneal cavity-normal. Ribs-intact. Hyoid bone-intact. Stomach and contents-empty. Liver pale, spleen pale, kidney-pale. Intestine-empty. Bladder-empty. Spinal cord-Normal. Brain-Depressed fracture-frontal bone from right to left eye, fracture parietal bone 6 cm length (left) fracture nasal bone (middle) diffuse haematoma over the whole cerebrum (Frontal, Parietal and occipital Lobes)." He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ-Brain. 3.18. PW-29, Dr.C.Senthilkumar, conducted autopsy on the body of D-5 and found the following injuries:- 1. Lacerated 8 X 1 X 1 cm (left leg). 2. Lacerated wound middle side of (right) leg size 2 X 1 CM. 3. Lacerated wound 12X2X1 (left) frontal to parietal area of scalp. Signs of decomposition: No signs of decomposition. General appearance: Do tally with police report. Eyelids – closed. Mouth – closed. Tongue – inside the mouth. Ears – Normal. Generative organ – Normal. Scrotum – Normal." He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ – Brain. 3.19. Continuing the investigation, PW-37 gave a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate to forward the Material Objects for chemical examination. Then, he handed over the case diary to PW-38 for continuing the investigation, since he was transferred. 3.20. On 08.10.2009, PW-38, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He collected the medical records and examined the doctors, who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased. He also collected the chemical analysis report [EX-P25], which revealed that the human bloodstains were found on the dress materials. But, no bloodstain was found on the wooden log. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused on 15.12.2009. 4. After the arrest of the accused, it was found prima facie that he was suffering from mental illness. But, no bloodstain was found on the wooden log. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused on 15.12.2009. 4. After the arrest of the accused, it was found prima facie that he was suffering from mental illness. Therefore, he was referred to the hospital for psychiatric opinion. After several months of the said treatment, the doctors opined that the accused could stand the trial, and thereafter, based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused on 15.03.2011. The accused pleaded innocence, and therefore, he was put on trial. 5. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, a total number of 38 witnesses were examined and 33 documents were exhibited, besides fourteen Material Objects. Out of the said witnesses, PW-1, PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken to about the entire occurrence. During cross-examination of these witnesses, he did not deny the facts spoken to by these witnesses. Apart from the above, it is the positive defence taken by the accused that he attacked the deceased, but at that time, he was of unsound mind. From the eye witness account of the above said witnesses, coupled with the non-denial of the facts by the accused as spoken to by these witnesses, the Trial Court found that it was this accused, who alone attacked all the five deceased and caused extensive injuries. From the evidences of the doctors, who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased, it has been clearly proved that the death of the five deceased was due to the injures caused by the accused. Thus, according to the Trial Court, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution that the death of the five deceased was homicide and the said homicide was caused by this accused. 6. According to the accused, at the time of occurrence, by the reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, which he had committed, and thus, his act of killing of the five deceased is not an offence, as his act falls within the ambit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. According to the accused, at the time of occurrence, by the reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, which he had committed, and thus, his act of killing of the five deceased is not an offence, as his act falls within the ambit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. But, the Trial Court has not accepted the said plea of the accused that at the time of occurrence, he was of unsound mind in terms of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant would take us through the evidences of the witnesses and the medical records with a view to substantiate the claim of the accused that he was of unsound mind falling within the sweep of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would refute the said argument. According to him, though the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia subsequent to the occurrence, there is no evidence that at the time when he committed the killing of the five deceased, he was of unsound mind. Thus, according to him, the Trial Court was right in rejecting the plea of legal insanity and the Lower Court was right in convicting the accused. 10. We have considered the above submissions. In this regard, before going into the facts of the case, let us, at the first, have a cursory glance through Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also few Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to highlight the legal position. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- "84. Act of a person of unsound mind.-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the at, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." 11. Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions specified in the Penal Code lies upon the accused person. It further provides that in such a case, the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. 12. Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions specified in the Penal Code lies upon the accused person. It further provides that in such a case, the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. 12. The above said two provisions came to be extensively considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Coram of three Hon'ble Judges] in BhikariVs. State of UP reported in AIR 1966 Crl.L.J.63. In the said Judgment, in Paragraph Nos.5 and 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 5. Learned counsel, however, relies upon a decision of this Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat and contends that it is for the prosecution to establish the necessary mens rea of the accused and that even though the accused may not have taken the plea of insanity or led any evidence to show that he was insane when he committed an offence of which intention is an ingredient the prosecution must satisfy the court that the accused had the requisite intention. There is no doubt that the burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts. It would, therefore, be correct to say that intention, when it is an essential ingredient of an offence, has also to be established by the prosecution. But the state of mind of a person can ordinarily only be inferred from circumstances. Thus if a person deliberately strikes another with a deadly weapon, which according to the common experience of mankind is likely to cause an injury and sometimes even a fatal injury depending upon the quality of the weapon and the part of the body on which it is struck, it would be reasonable to infer that what the accused did was accompanied by the intention to cause a kind of injury which in fact resulted from the act. In such a case the prosecution must be deemed to have discharged the burden which rested upon it to establish an essential ingredient of the offence, namely the intention of the accused in inflicting a blow with a deadly weapon. In such a case the prosecution must be deemed to have discharged the burden which rested upon it to establish an essential ingredient of the offence, namely the intention of the accused in inflicting a blow with a deadly weapon. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can no doubt be invoked by a person for nullifying the evidence adduced by the prosecution by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Now it is not for the prosecution to establish that a person who strikes another with a deadly weapon was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Everyone is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly everyone is also presumed to know the law. These are not facts which the prosecution has to establish. It is for this reason that Section 105 of the Evidence Act places upon the accused person the burden of proving the exception upon which he relies. Mr Varma, however, relies upon the following passage occurring in the aforementioned judgment of this Court: “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 rebut table presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant 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 mens 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.” And contends that according to the decision of this Court the legal position is otherwise. 6. This passage does not say anything different from what we have said earlier. Undoubtedly it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. Once that is done a presumption that the accused was sane when he committed the offence would arise. This presumption is rebuttable and he can rebut it either by leading evidence or by relying upon the prosecution evidence itself. If upon the evidence adduced in the case whether by the prosecution or by the accused a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused he would be entitled to be acquitted. This is very different from saying that the prosecution must also establish the sanity of the accused at the time of commission of the offence despite what has been expressly provided for in Section 105 of the Evidence Act." 13. Subsequently, a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Coram of four Hon'ble Judges], in SheralliWali Mohammed Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 4 SCC 79 , in Paragraph No.12, has held as follows:- "12. To establish that the acts done are not offences under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved clearly that, at the time of the commission of the acts, the appellant, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act or that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law. The question to be asked is, is there evidence to show that, at the time of the commission of the offence, he was labouring under any such incapacity? On this question, the state of his mind before and after the commission of the offence is relevant. The general burden of proof that an accused person is in a sound state of mind is upon the prosecution. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thahkar v. State of Gujarat Subba Rao, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court said: “(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 thatalways 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 Indian Penal Code; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant 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 mens 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.” 14. The Judgments, commencing from BhikariVs. State of UP reported in AIR 1966 Crl.L.J.63, have been followed consistently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law stands well settled on the following aspects;- i. The burden of proving commission of an offence is always on the prosecution and that the same never shifts. Equally well settled is the proposition that if intention is an essential ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused, the prosecution must establish that ingredient also. ii. The burden of proving that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law is upon the accused. iii. ii. The burden of proving that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law is upon the accused. iii. The standard of proof, which the accused has to satisfy for the discharge of the burden cast upon him under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not of the same rigour as the burden of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is enough for the accused to show, as in a civil case, that the preponderance of probabilities is in his favour. 15. Keeping in mind the above legal principles, let us now analyze the evidences available on record. It is seen that almost all the witnesses from the occurrence village examined by the prosecution have said in one voice that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind. The accused had no motive against any of the deceased. It is not as though he attacked all the five deceased at one and the same place. The narration of the occurrence as made by the prosecution witnesses would go to show that holding the wooden log in his hand, the accused was attacking everyone, whom he happened to see at five different places. 16. After the occurrence, the accused was taken to the Government Hospital at Pudukkottai for psychiatric opinion on 25.06.2009. Dr.P.R.Rajesh Kumar examined him and made the following observations:- [vide EX-D1] "He was admitted at Pudukkottai Headquarters Government Hospital on 25.06.2009 at 04.05 PM and examined by me on 26.06.2009 at 11.00 AM. After my examination, I could not come to a conclusion. Since he needs further detailed examination and Senior Civil Surgeon opinion, he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College, Psychiatric Department. 17. In the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, he was admitted in the Department of Psychiatry for nine days between 26.06.2009 and 04.07.2009. DW-2, Dr.R.Muralidharan, was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry during the relevant period. He examined the accused and observed him for nine days between 26.06.2009 and 04.07.2009. DW-2, Dr.R.Muralidharan has given the following opinion:- "Patient referred by Pudukkottai Government Hospital Psychiatric for further opinion. Patient has been observed and he is suffering from schizophrenia illness with polysubstance abuse. He was again referred back Psychiatry Department, Government Hospital, Pudukkottai District." 18. He examined the accused and observed him for nine days between 26.06.2009 and 04.07.2009. DW-2, Dr.R.Muralidharan has given the following opinion:- "Patient referred by Pudukkottai Government Hospital Psychiatric for further opinion. Patient has been observed and he is suffering from schizophrenia illness with polysubstance abuse. He was again referred back Psychiatry Department, Government Hospital, Pudukkottai District." 18. Accordingly, he was taken back to the Psychiatry Department, Government Hospital, Pudukkottai District, where from on 08.07.2009, he was again referred to Kilpauk, Institute of Mental Health, Chennai. He was admitted as an inpatient at Kilpauk, Institute of Mental Health, Chennai, on 09.07.2009, [vide EX-D3]. One Dr.M.Karthik treated him and gave the following opinion:- "The above mentally ill prisoner Mr.R.Marudhu @ Maruthupandian S/o.Mr.Ragavan Servai was admitted on 09.07.2009, Cr.IP.No.20/09 in Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. He was certified as Paranoid Schizophrenia by Dr.R.Muralidharan, MD(Psy), Asst. Professor, Tanjore Medical College and Hosptial. He was admitted in Pudukkottai GH with detention order from District Court, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. Referred from Pudukkottai GH to Institute of Mental Health for treatment. Since admission, the patient was subjected for laboratory psychological and mental status examination and he is diagnosed as a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia. The patient showed improvement with regular medication and was placed before hospital visitors committee on 31.08.2009. The committee comprising of Judicial Magistrate, Jail Superintendent and others opined that patient should be produced in Thirumayam Court for further proceedings and to face trial. The patient is conscious, ambulant, speaks in simple sentence – relevantly and shows interest in self-care. He should attend Department of Psychiatry, Medical College Hospital, Tanjore, once in two weeks for follow–up and maintain improvement." 19. It was only, thereafter, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, committed to the Court of Sessions and then, he was tried. From the above medical records and the evidences of DW-1 and DW-2, it is crystal clear that the deceased was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In respect of the nature of the deceased, DW-2, Dr.R.Muralidharan, has explained, in his evidence, that such a patient, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, will have an illusion of imaginary persons and thinking and he cannot take any decision of his own. From the above evidence, it has been clearly established that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act, which he did. 20. From the above evidence, it has been clearly established that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act, which he did. 20. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment came to be considered by the Hon'ble Surpreme Court inShrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 (7) SCC 748 , wherein in Paragraph Nos.10 and 11, it has been held as follows:- "10. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but afterwards change into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from persecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his memory and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.) 11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting the behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself and to others." 21. (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.) 11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting the behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself and to others." 21. Having noted the dangers flowing from the said disease, let us now examine the question, as to whether, at the time of occurrence, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The doctors have opined that he is an old case of paranoid schizophrenia, which means, he was suffering from the said disease prior to the occurrence. Of course, it is the burden of the accused to prove that at the time of occurrence, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Here, in this case, from the overwhelming materials available on record, it could be inferred that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, even before the occurrence and he continued to suffer from the said disease at the time of occurrence as well. 22. There are certain circumstances, which need consideration. The parents of the accused were residing in Thiruvidaimaruthur Village in Thanjavur District. They did not take care of the accused. He was residing in Thirupur and he was in employment. Because his behaviour was unbearable, his wife deserted him and went away to her parental home with her child. The accused did not go either to his parental home or to the house of his wife. Instead, he came to the occurrence village, where he was not residing permanently in any house. It is in evidence that he was roaming around. He used to beg for money and for eatables, like tea, coffee etc. It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that at one point of time, he became a very big nuisance for the villagers, because he started to attack the people. It is because of the said reason, the villagers put him in a bus bound for Thirupur, paid money for ticket and requested the conductor to leave him in Thirupur. But, after the bus had travelled for some distance, he jumped out of the bus and returned to the village. It is because of the said reason, the villagers put him in a bus bound for Thirupur, paid money for ticket and requested the conductor to leave him in Thirupur. But, after the bus had travelled for some distance, he jumped out of the bus and returned to the village. The very fact that the villagers packed him off from the village in order to get rid off from his menace, would clearly go to prove that even prior to the occurrence as well as at the time of occurrence, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Thus, in our considered view, the accused has discharged his burden under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and thus, he was of unsound mind falling within the sweep of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. But, the plea of insanity was rejected by the Trial Court. While considering the medical records and the medical evidences in respect of paranoid schizophrenia, the Lower Court was not prepared to accept that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of occurrence. The said conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is based on the fact that when he was produced before PW-10, he told PW-10 that he had killed five persons. According to the Trial Court, this utterance of the accused shows that he was capable of understanding and thus, he had full knowledge of the act, which he had committed. The Trial Court has, thus, come to the conclusion that the accused would not to have been suffering from mental disorder. The Trial Court went to the extent of saying that the accused was not, in fact, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was only pretending. The relevant observations of the Trial Court, in this regard, are as follows:- "The charge sheet was received into Court only on 19.01.2010. But, his O.P.Treatment record in Ex.D-3, dated 13.10.2009 reveals in page 10 of the notes that he stated thathe knows that he has committed murder, which again confirms that he was not suffering from any mental disorder at the time of occurrence. On 2nd thought, he could have acted as if he is suffering from any disorder subsequent to the occurrence. Or on the instigation of somebody he could have acted as if he is suffering from mental disorder, after the occurrence. On 2nd thought, he could have acted as if he is suffering from any disorder subsequent to the occurrence. Or on the instigation of somebody he could have acted as if he is suffering from mental disorder, after the occurrence. Or due to the 5 murders committed by him in a fit of rage, he could have gone sleepless from 19.06.2009 to 24.06.2009, on thinking of the consequences, due to which he could have developed psychiatric symptoms due to sleepless days and nights. Since there is no previous history of mental disorder, the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the accused are rejected from consideration. In view of the ruling cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, since there is no history of mental disorder, as stated supra, the accused had full knowledge of the acts indulged in him and the injuries caused by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of five persons and hence, the accused has to be held liable for the said offences." 24. We are unable to agree with the above findings of the Trial Court. As we have extracted above, the Trial Court has virtually held that the accused was not at all suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was only pretending. This conclusion of the Trial Court has no basis at all. The medical records and the evidences of DW-1 and DW-2 would clearly reveal that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and all the other circumstances, which we have narrated above, would go to show that the said disease would not have affected him only after the occurrence. As we have already concluded, there are overwhelming evidences to come to the conclusion that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia even before the occurrence and he continued to suffer from the said disease at the time of occurrence and subsequent to the occurrence also. Therefore, we hold that the act of the accused killing the five persons is not an offence, as his act squarely falls within the general exception contained in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 25. Having come to the said conclusion, we cannot allow the accused to go scot-free, because allowing him to freely move in the society may again result in serious consequences. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 25. Having come to the said conclusion, we cannot allow the accused to go scot-free, because allowing him to freely move in the society may again result in serious consequences. As a matter of fact, before commencing to hear this Referred Trial and the Criminal Appeal, since the Referred Trial is the continuation of the trial, we wanted to ascertain as to whether the accused is capable of knowing the proceedings. Therefore, we issued a direction on 27.11.2012 to the Dean, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, attached to K.A.P.V.Government Medical College, Tiruchirappalli, to form a Committee of Experts with a direction to the said Committee to examine the accused and to submit a report about his mental health to this Court. 26. In pursuance of the said direction, the accused was admitted on 22.12.2012 in Male Psychiatry Ward Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichy. The Dean of Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, under reference No.10178/E3/12, dated 04.01.2013, has submitted a report to this Court, which reads as follows:- "As per the reference above, Mr.Maruthu @ Maruthupandian 41 yr/m admitted on 22.12.2012 in male psychiatry ward Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Govt hospital, trichy [IP No.63985, Psychiatry OP No.2133/12]. "He was examined, observed from 22.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 for a period of 10 days. His old records were also seen. Mr.Maruthu @ Maruthupandian is certified in the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, on 31.08.2009 as a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia. He was advised medicines. He is on treatment with the medicines from Prison Hospital till date. He was examined and observed for 10 days. He does not have any psychological symptom and signs currently. His higher mental functions like concentration, orientation, Judgment, abstract thinking and general information is within normal limits. At present, Mr.Maruthu @ Maruthupandian is fit to stand trail in the Court of law." 27. It is only based on the above report of the Team of Doctors, we concluded that the accused is fit to stand trial, and accordingly, we have heard the Referred Trial as well as the Criminal Appeal. Though the doctors have certified that the accused, as of now, is fit to stand the trial, they have not opined that the accused is fully cured. From the standard medical books, we could see that paranoid schizophrenia is an illness that lasts all the way through the individual's life. Though the doctors have certified that the accused, as of now, is fit to stand the trial, they have not opined that the accused is fully cured. From the standard medical books, we could see that paranoid schizophrenia is an illness that lasts all the way through the individual's life. It is a chronic condition. Patients with paranoid schizophrenia, require treatment on a permanent basis, even when symptoms seem to have receded a tempting time for schizophrenia patients to say they are fine and need no more help. Treatment is basically the same for all forms of schizophrenia. There are variations depending on the severity and types of symptoms, the health of the patient, his/her age, as well as some other factors. A team of health care professionals will be involved in treating a person with paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenia can affect many areas of the patient's life. Thus, the team will include a wide range of dedicated professionals. Therefore, we cannot allow him to be set at free so as to move in public, as, due to chronic nature of the disease, the accused may indulge in similar activities in future. The accused requires treatment on permanent basis. 28. In this background, now, let us refer to Chapter 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contains the provisions as to accused persons of unsound mind. Section 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- "335. Person acquitted on such ground to be detained in safe custody.- (1) whenever the finding states that the accused person committed the act alleged, the Magistrate or Court before whom or which the trial has been held, shall, if such act would, but for the incapacity found, have constituted an offence,- (a) order such person to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as the Magistrate or Court thinks fit; or (b) order such person to be delivered to any relative or friend of such person. (2) No order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be under clause (a) of sub - section (1) otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912). (2) No order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be under clause (a) of sub - section (1) otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912). (3) No order for the delivery of the accused to a relative or friend shall be made under clause (b) of sub – section (1), except upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or Court that the person delivered shall - (b) be produced for the inspection of such officer, and at such times and places, as the (a). be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person; State Government may direct. (4). The Magistrate or Court shall report to the State Government the action taken under sub-section (1)." 29. It needs to be mentioned that Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 335, stands repealed by the Mental Health Act, 1987. Section 24 of the Mental Health Act 1987, reads as follows:- "24. Procedure on production of mentally ill person-(1). If a person is produced before a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 23, and if, in his opinion, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further, the Magistrate shall - (a) examine the person to assess his capacity to understand, (b) cause him to be examined by a medical officer, and (c) make such inquiries in relation to such person as he may deem necessary. (2) After the completion of the proceedings under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may pass a reception order authorising the detention of the said person as an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, - (a) if the medical officer certifies such person to be a mentally ill person, and (b) if the Magistrate is satisfied that the said person is a mentally ill person and that in the interests of the health and personal safety of that person or for the protection of others, it is necessary to pass such order." 30. As per Section 335(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of this Court to pass an appropriate order to detain the appellant in safe custody. As per Section 335(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of this Court to pass an appropriate order to detain the appellant in safe custody. As per Section 24 of the Mental Health Act, 1987, this Court is empowered to pass a reception order under the Mental Health Act, 1987, directing the person to be kept in any one of the Licensed Psychiatric Nursing Homes run by the Government. Therefore, we are inclined to issue a reception order to the effect that the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Trichirappalli, shall set the accused at liberty and hand him over to the respondent – Inspector of Police, who shall, in turn, hand over the accused to the Kilpauk Institute of Mental Health, Chennai. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, having jurisdiction, shall deal with the accused as per the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, without any reference to this Court. 31. In the result, R.T.(MD).No.1 of 2012 is disposed of and Criminal Appeal (MD).No.136 of 2012 is allowed in the following terms:- (i). we annul the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and acquit him of all the charges framed against him. (ii). On releasing the appellant from the prison, the Superintendent, Central Prison, shall hand over the accused to the respondent – Inspector of Police, who, in turn, shall hand over the accused to the Kilpauk Institute of Mental Health, Chennai, for safe custody and treatment. (iii). The operative portion of this order shall be treated as a reception order passed under the Mental Health Act, 1987. (iv). After the accused is admitted in the Kilpauk Institute of Mental Health, Chennai, it shall be for the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, having jurisdiction, to deal with the accused, as per the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, without any further reference to this Court.