JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2011 in S.C.No.51 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.) R. Hemalatha, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2011 in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, in and by which, the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 342, 354, 307 and 302 IPC and sentenced as under: Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 452 IPC Rigourous Imprisonment for one year. Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 342 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. - 354 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. - 307 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in this Criminal Appeal. 2. The prosecution theory runs as follows:- 2.1)Mipthahil Niyas (aged 1 ½ years and the deceased in this case) is the son of Zakiral Thabusum @ Thabusum [P.W1]. Thabusum was residing with her mother Balkis Begum [P.W-2] with her son at Door No. 2/377, Indhra Nagar, Thirumalaiyapapuram, Kadayam. On the fateful day i.e., 17.10.2010 at about 8.15 a.m, when P.W-2 was away to buy breakfast, the appellant approached P.W-1 in her house and asked for drinking water. P.W-1 went inside the house to fetch water and at that time the appellant trespassed into her house and locked the front door of the house. He also misbehaved with P.W-1 by pulling her hands and outraged her modesty. Thereafter, he brandished a knife [M.O2] and threatened to kill her and her son, if she does not submit herself to his desire. Since P.W-1 resisted the appellant, he cut leftside of her neck with the knife. P.W-1 prevented the appellant from attacking her further, as a result of which she sustained injuries on her right palm. She screamed and escaped through the back door leaving her 1 ½ year old son inside the house. She also screamed for help. Since P.W-1 resisted the appellant, he cut leftside of her neck with the knife. P.W-1 prevented the appellant from attacking her further, as a result of which she sustained injuries on her right palm. She screamed and escaped through the back door leaving her 1 ½ year old son inside the house. She also screamed for help. When she came to the front portion and peeped through the window, she saw the appellant cutting the neck of the child with the knife [M.O2]. P.W-1 again rushed to back door and went inside the house along with her relatives. on seeing her son bleeding, P.W-1 fainted and she was rushed to Government Hospital at Tenkasi. 2.2) Peer Mohammed [P.W3] a relative of P.W-2, who had incidentally come to P.W-2's house to meet P.W-2 also a witness to the incident. He was in the midst of melee, when he reached the house and heard the screams of P.W1. He also pleaded with the appellant through the front window to leave the child uninjured. But the appellant did not heed to their request. The murder of the child took place before the eyes of P.W-1 and P.W-3. P.W-2, who had gone to buy breakfast joined later by which time the appellant had fled the scene through the front door. 2.3) Dr.Saravanan [P.W7] examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries:- 1) Laceration 7x2x2 cm over the left side of her neck. 2) Laceration 10 x 5 x 5 cm bone deep on the back side of her neck. 3) Laceration 10 x 7 x 5 cm on her right palm. A copy of the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P-6. P.W-7 after giving first aid referred her to Government Hospital, Thirunelveli for further treatment and management. 2.4) In the meanwhile, Tmt.Meeral Banu [P.W-13], the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadayam police station, went to Tenkasi Government Hospital on receiving intimation from the hospital and recorded the complaint statement [Ex.P1] of P.W1 and obtained her thumb impression on it. Thereafter, she went to Kadayam Police station and registered FIR [Ex.P-17] in Crime No.159/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 307 and 302 IPC and sent FIR to Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, through Sudalaimuthu [P.W-11], the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station. She then placed the entire records before the Inspector of Police, Kallidaikurichi, who was in charge of Kadayam Police Station. She then placed the entire records before the Inspector of Police, Kallidaikurichi, who was in charge of Kadayam Police Station. 2.5) Thiru.Ajithkumar [P.W-15], Inspector of Police (I/c), Kadayam Police Station took up investigation in Kadayam Police Station Crime No.159/2010, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P3] and a rough sketch [Ex.P19] in the presence of Madhar Gani [P.W-4] and K.Mohammed Mohideen (not examined). P.W-15 conducted inquest [Ex.P20] on the body of the deceased child at the place of occurrence in the presence of five witnesses. He, then sent the body for postmortem to Government Hospital, Ambasamudram,, through Muthupandiyan [P.W-12], Head Constable of Police. He also recovered a piece of bloodstained brick mortar [M.O7] and ordinary brick mortar [M.O8] and a bloodstained 28 cm long knife with a 16cm long wooden handle under the cover of a mahazar [Ex.P5] in the presence of Mohammed Mohideen [P.W-14] and Madhar Gani [P.W-4]. Thiru.Anbarasu [P.W-6] took photographs [M.O5] of the deceased at the scene of occurrence. P.W-15 then sent the body of the deceased child for postmortem through Muthupandian [P.W-12] Grade-I Police attached to Kadayam Police Station to Government Hospital. 2.6) P.W-15, thereafter arrested the appellant on the same date at about 06.00 p.m., near a weekly bazaar and recorded his confessional statement (admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P4) in the presence of Meeran Mohideen (not examined) and Ibrahim Badhusha [P.W-5] based on which he recovered a bloodstained lungi [M.O3] and a half sleeve shirt [M.O4], which were hidden by the appellant beneath a bush near Sudalai Madasamy temple. He then produced the appellant before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for judicial custody. 2.7) Dr.Venkatachalapathy[P.W8] conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:- i) 3 insized cut wound in the fact (ii) The cut measuring 11 x 6 x 5 cm of the anterior portion of the neck starting from 4 cm below which the windpipe, food pipe and blood vessels were completely cut. In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased “died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to major blood vessel, trachea oesophagus and nerves.” 2.8) P.W-12 handed over the body of the child after postmortem to the relatives of the child. In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased “died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to major blood vessel, trachea oesophagus and nerves.” 2.8) P.W-12 handed over the body of the child after postmortem to the relatives of the child. He submitted the white banian [M.O1] worn by the deceased child to the Investigation Officer, which was sent to Court under Form-95 [Ex.P21] for onward submission to Forensic Lab for analysis. 2.9)Thiru.P.Duraisamy [P.W-16], the Inspector of Police, who resumed duty took up further investigation in Crime No.159/10. He collected reports of the experts and recorded the statements of witnesses. After completing investigation, he filed the final report against the appellant on 01.12.2010 under Sections 452, 342, 354, 506(ii), 307 and 302 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, in P.R.C.No. 58/2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate after furnishing copies of records to the appellant under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Court of Sessions which was subsequently made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. To the Charges framed under Sections 452, 342, 354, 506(ii), 307 and 302 IPC against the appellant, the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, the case was posted for trial. 2.11) In order to establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and marked twenty one exhibits and eight Material Objects. 2.12) When the appellant was questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The appellant stated that he did not commit the offence and that he is mentally ill. However, he did not examine any witness on his side. 2.13) The learned Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1. Challenging the same, present appeal is filed by the appellant along with a petition to condone the delay of 3036 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act in Crl.M.P(MD) No.2636 of 2020. The said petition was allowed on 03.06.2020. Since the appellant is an indigent person, Mr.R.Jagadeeswaran, counsel was nominated from Legal Aid to defend the appellant. 3. Challenging the same, present appeal is filed by the appellant along with a petition to condone the delay of 3036 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act in Crl.M.P(MD) No.2636 of 2020. The said petition was allowed on 03.06.2020. Since the appellant is an indigent person, Mr.R.Jagadeeswaran, counsel was nominated from Legal Aid to defend the appellant. 3. This is a case of cruel murder of the victim being a 1 ½ year old child and the manner in which he was murdered is nothing less than a slaughter. The 1 ½ year old child, who became the victim, when his mother [P.W-1] resisted the sexual advances made by the appellant, who under the pretext of asking for water entered the house. It is also seen from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses that he was already known to those living upstairs in the same house and therefore, P.W-1 did not suspect the intentions of the appellant. It has also been narrated that the appellant while seeking sexual favour from P.W-1 had threatened to kill her and her son, if she did not relent, thereby it is evident that the appellant was clear as to what he wanted and that only the turn of events was little unexpected as P.W-1 could make good her escape through the back door only to come to the front entrance seeking help from her neighbours. The location of the house has also been described as a congested residential locality. P.W-3, a relative of P.W-1 and P.W-2, who incidentally along with another two relatives were also witnesses to the gory details of the crime, though only P.W-3 was examined by the prosecution. P.W-3 had also some other extra details to depose wherein he had stated that when he along with P.W-1, P.W-2 and other two relatives had rushed to the back entrance to apprehend the assailant and control the damage being done by him to the child, the appellant had left his Weapon [M.O2] and came out of the house through the front door only to lie down on the verandah unnoticed by anyone in the crowd gathered there. According to P.W-3, the appellant ran away after P.W-1 was taken to a hospital. This aspect was mentioned only by P.W-3 and P.W-1 and P.W-2 being the bereaved ones were in a state of shock and definitely were not in a position to narrate such details. According to P.W-3, the appellant ran away after P.W-1 was taken to a hospital. This aspect was mentioned only by P.W-3 and P.W-1 and P.W-2 being the bereaved ones were in a state of shock and definitely were not in a position to narrate such details. In fact, P.W-1 after seeing her child murdered in such a cruel manner had fainted and became unconscious. She herself bore cut injuries and required immediate medical attention. P.W-2 in her deposition has narrated as to how she witnessed her injured and bleeding daughter P.W-1 screaming for help and the presence of P.W-3 and the other two relatives amidst the chaos that prevailed in front of her house. She was also amongst the four or five of them, who had rushed to the back entrance after witnessing the murderous assault on her grandson by the appellant through the front window. 4. Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran, learned counsel for the appellant harped on one aspect that of the mental illness of the appellant. His argument was that even by the statement of P.W1 made to the Doctor [P.W-7] at the first instance when she was taken to the hospital, she had described the assailant as mentally unstable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this one aspect derailed the entire prosecution case. 5. However, Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted this claim. According to him, the Accident Register [Ex.P7] did not mention that the assailant was mentally unstable. P.W-1 in fact had only stated that the assailant was mentally disturbed and not one who was mentally ill as claimed by the counsel for the appellant. Moreover, Dr.Saravanan [P.W-7] had deposed that P.W-1 never mentioned that the appellant was mentally unstable and that she only informed him that the appellant was under mental stress. 6. In fact, the trial Court in its judgment had justified the guilt of the appellant by clearly stating that the defense did not substantiate that the appellant was either suffering from any mental ailment or under medication for the same. It was also pointed out by the trial Court that none of the relatives of the assailant or doctors were examined on this aspect of mental illness. However, after the ghastly crime committed by the appellant, a medical certificate dated 23.10.2010 was issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli that the appellant was treated for schizophrenia. It was also pointed out by the trial Court that none of the relatives of the assailant or doctors were examined on this aspect of mental illness. However, after the ghastly crime committed by the appellant, a medical certificate dated 23.10.2010 was issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli that the appellant was treated for schizophrenia. The trial Court was also convinced that the appellant had clarity while answering the questions put to him and thereafter did not show any symptoms of mental illness as claimed by the defense. 7. A peek into some of the common symptoms of schizophrenia shows that hallucination, delusion, lack of energy, lack of interest in family and personal life, lack of sleep, lack of sense of grooming, random talking without sense of words and difficulty in social conversation are found in such patients. The learned trial Court Judge having seen the appellant in person and having found his answers to the questions posed to him reasonably cogent, rightly concluded that he was mentally stable. The side of the defense did not also take any steps or put forth any other supporting evidence to further this claim. 8. The sequence of events as narrated by P.W1, who was the main target of the attack shows that there was a demand for sexual favour from P.W-1 by the appellant which led to the murder. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussions, it can be held that there is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. Moreover, P.W-1, who confronted the appellant also sustained injuries in the process. She is a crucial witness and her deposition clinches the issue in favour of the prosecution without any doubt. It is trite that the evidence of an injured witness has to be kept at a higher pedestal as alluded to in the Supreme Court Judgment in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2010) 10 SCC 259 ]. In paragraph No.30, it is held as follows:- “30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. In paragraph No.30, it is held as follows:- “30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The injured eye witness account (Mother of the deceased child) is in consonance with the injuries found on the body of the deceased child as is seen from the postmortem certificate. 10.In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court Judge and accordingly, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, (i) This Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, against the appellant in S.C.No.51 of 2011 dated 02.02.2011, is hereby confirmed. (iii) We place on record our appreciation to Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran, the counsel nominated by the Legal Aid Board for effectively arguing the case of the appellant. (iv) The remuneration for the Legal Aid Counsel is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).