IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 243 of 2005 ----------------------- SC.304/2003 of THE ADDL.SESSIONS, FAST TRACK NO.I, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: ----------- MUHAMMED KOYA @ KOYA, CONVICT NO.1324, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY ADV.M.R.JAYAPRASAD(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-8-2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== CRL.A.NO. 243 OF 2005 ============================ DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The appellant in this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1(Ad-hoc),Manjeri in S.C.No.304/2003. He has been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The deceased Suhrabi was the wife of the appellant/accused . On 11-3-2002 at about 10.30 a.m. the appellant attacked his wife Suhrabi by using a heavy marble piece, the handle of an axe and a sickle while she was in the kitchen of her house. Using the marble piece and the wooden handle of the axe, she was CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-2:- hit/struck on the head and using sickle, cut injury was caused on her neck. Hearing the cry, the persons from the neighbourhood came, rushed there they found the accused seated on the floor of the kitchen and Suhrabi was lying flat on her face. The neighbours rushed her to a nearby hospital as there were signs of life in her. From there, she was referred to Al-shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna where she was pronounced dead . The accused was arrested by the police and the material objects used for causing hurt to his wife were recovered. The local Tahsildar holding the inquest and prepared the inquest report. The autopsy was held by PW11 and issued Ext.P10 post-mortem certificate. The cause of the death was injuries found on the head. PW16 did major part of the investigation including the questioning of the witnesses, preparing mahazars etc. PW15, the Circle Inspector of Police, completed the investigation and laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur. On committal by the said court, the Sessions Court made over the case for trial to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, (Adhoc)Manjeri. The accused pleaded not CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-3:- guilty to the charges framed against him by the trial court. The prosecution to prove its case examining PWs.1 to 16 and marked Exts.P1 to P17. Material objects, MO.1 to MO.5 were produced and marked. While questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.the accused denied the circumstances that appeared against him in the offence. From his side DW1, Psychiatrist who treated him was examined and Exts.P2(a) to P2(c) documents relating to the treatments were marked. Before the trial court, the defence did not seriously dispute the commission of the offence by the accused. Mainly it was contended by the defence that the accused was suffering from legal insanity and therefore, he is entitled to protection of Section 84 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge considered the said defence in detail and rejected the same. So he was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced accordingly. 3. In this case, the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the following points before us: 1. There is no occurrence witness. No one has seen the accused committing the crime. Therefore, the accused is entitled to get CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-4:- the benefit of doubt. 2. PWs.9 and 10 have spoken where they went to the scene of occurrence, they saw the accused sitting in the floor of his kitchen and Suhrabi lying injured by his side. Both of them stated simultaneously the scene of occurrence, but their version regarding the incident as also the statement allegedly made by the accused are full of contradictions. Therefore, it is quite unsafe to rely on their evidence to convict the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the accused to commit the crime. The absence of any motive for the accused will seriously weaken the case of the prosecution. 4. It is contended that the accused was suffering from legal insanity. PW1 was examined to ascertain whether the accused was mentally fit to face the trial. He was examined by the defence as DW1. He has spoken to that he was an in-patient in the said Doctor's hospital from 21-3-2002 to 23-9-2002, i.e. for a period of about six months. So, it can be presumed that the above mental condition persisted for sometime before the CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-5:- actual incident took place. He was suffering from legal insanity at the time of commission of offence. He was not knowing what he was doing. He did not know it was wrong or contrary to law. Therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted. 5. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that a dog, which was chained, was found dead with injuries and the handle of an axe was lying beside there. There is no evidence on record to show that it was done by the accused. Though at the trial stage, the defence would submit that the action of the accused in killing the dog will show that he was not mentally normal. But the learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that in the absence of any evidence that the dog was killed by the accused and presumed that there was a person present in the scene, he might have attacked Suhrabi and made escape. But the police did not investigate the reason for the death of the dog in unnatural circumstances. The above aspect casts serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. For this reason also, the appellant claims the benefit of doubt. 4. The leaned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the defence CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-6:- counsel at the trial stage admitted the commission of the offence by the accused, but pleaded the defence of legal insanity. The said point has been rightly found against him by the trial court. The learned Prosecutor also submitted that the other contentions raised before this Court are also untenable. 5. Before dealing with the rival submissions, we would refer to the evidence on record in this case. PW1 is the Doctor who treated the appellant at the relevant time. He was a Civil Surgeon of Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. The appellant was admitted in the hospital on 21-3-2002 with a history of mental disorder depression. He was discharged on 23-9-2002 as his mental condition improved. The Doctor also stated that the accused was fit to stand trial. He has also produced Ext.P1 certificate issued by him regarding the illness of the accused and also the case sheet which was marked as Ext.P2. PW2 is the Village Officer, who prepared Ext.P3 scene plan. PW3 is the witness to Ext.P4 inquest report. PW4 is the witness to Ext.P5 scene mahazar. PW5 is a police constable who is a witness to Ext.P6 mahazar as per which MO.2 dhothi worn by the CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-7:- accused was seized. PW6 is the witness to Ext.P7 mahazar as per which Ext.P8 photographs and their negatives were seized. 6. PW7, Rejina is a lady living in the neighbourhood. Her house is second house from the house of Suhrabi. In the morning at 11 a.m., she went to the house of PW8 to get a gold ornament she can wear when she goes for a reception. The house of the accused and PW8 Remla are very close. When PW7 went there, Remla was feeding fruit to her child. When she requested for the ornaments, she said she will give it after feeding the child. At that time, she heard the cries of Suhrabi from her house and also the noise of beating. The witness called out whether there was any snake in the house. She called out so because a snake was seen in the house of Suhrabi before one week back and it was beaten to death. Whereupon, the accused replied that there was nothing. Soon thereafter the accused called out to the witness and told her that he has killed Suhrabi and the same may be informed to the police immediately. She told the same to Muhammadali, PW10. Since she was scared, she did not go to the scene. PW10 went to the CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-8:- nearby market. Immediately she left for the reception. After she returned from that function, she came to know of the incident. Occasionally, she used to hear the loud noise from the house of the accused. She has told the police about the incident. She used to talk to Suhrabi. She was a very good lady. On cross examination, she has stated that on that day, she did not go to the house of Suhrabi. She has not gone there thereafter also. She has not seen the incident directly. She used to get ornaments from Ramla while going for reception etc. On that day, she was going for a function connected with delivery in her husband's house. Hearing the hue and cry on that day, she returned without getting the ornaments. She knew the family of the accused for the last four years. She was not aware whether the elder son of the accused having mental illness. She has not seen the accused and his wife quarrelling. She was not told by Suhrabi that the accused was suffering from mental illness. She has also not told that there were quarrels between her and her husband. She denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused was suffering from mental illness. CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-9:- 7. PW8 Ramla is living in the house next to the house of the accused. Her husband is abroad. She has three children. Two of them are school going children and the youngest was aged 1 ½ years. She knew how Suhrabi died. While she was feeding her child, PW7 came there for getting a gold ornament for attending a reception. She told Rejina to wait till the child is fed. While so, a very loud cry of Suhrabi was heard from the house of the accused, beating sound was also heard. Rejina asked Suhrabi whether there was any snake. Thereupon the accused called out a loud that there is no snake and no one need come here. The said sound was heard from the kitchen side of their house. She did not see the accused. Suhrabi told them about the presence of a snake in her house for one week back that is why Ramla asked whether there was any snake. While so, the accused called out to Rejina saying that he has killed Suhrabi and the police may be informed. Thereupon, Rejina went to the house of PW10 and told him about the incident. Thereafter, PW8 went to her house. But she knew that something is happened in the house of the accused. Since she was scared, she did not look CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-10:- at the scene of occurrence. She came back when the police came. Thereupon it was known that Suhrabi was dead. Later, the dead body was taken to Suhrabi's house at Kozhikode after post mortem examination. So, the witness could not see the dead body. the house of the witness is nearest the house of the accused. Ordinarily, she has not heard any hue or cry from that house. In cross examination, he has stated that the witness has given a golden chain to Rejina. Since the accused did not have any female children, she was not having any relationship with that house. She has not heard any quarrel from that house between the husband and wife at any time. The elder son of the accused was unmarried. She was not aware whether he was having any mental illness. Sometime back, Suhrabi told her that the elder son is seeing a doctor at Kozhikode. She also stated that she was not aware whether the accused was having any mental illness. On the date of the incident, he did not hear or seen any quarrel between the husband and wife. She heard Suhrabi crying out. She also heard a beating sound. She has heard that the accused has killed his dog. She has not seen the CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-11:- accused with mental illness. PW9 is Shakkeb who is residing in the neighbourhood of the accused. He saw the wife of the accused lying injured. She was seen lying in the kitchen of her house. PW10 came running and told him that a murder has taken place in the house of the accused. PW10 also told him that since he was scared, he did not go there. The said witness also told PW9 that he was told about the incident by PW7. Thereupon, he along with others went to the house of the accused. Thereupon he saw Suhrabi lying injured on the back of her hut. He saw blood on the floor. A stone used for rolling chappathi was found there. There were blood stain also shown. The accused alone was there. The children were not there. When the witnesses asked the accused as what was happened. He was told that the accused was suffering her for the last 10 years. So, he has killed her. He did not see the accused doing anything to Suhrabi. He gave water to her. There was signs of her life in her. Using a cloth, the injury in the head was tied and she was taken to the hospital in a jeep. Initially, she was taken to a hospital near Valancherry. From there she was referred to Perinthalmanna CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-12:- Hospital. Navas, the third son (PW13)of the accused was also informed the incident. When the injured was taken from the kitchen the accused was remaining there and he was turned out. When the witness was going to Perinthalmanna from Valancherry, he saw the accused sitting in a shop by the side of the road. He was wearing a lunki and mundu. He was taken in to the Ambulance. Next day the police called him to the police station. The witness identified the clothes and also the stone used for rolling chappathi(MO.1). In cross examination, he has stated that the accused could not try to harm him or others. He was not aware whether the accused was going treatment for mental illness. He was also unaware whether there was any problem between the husband and wife. He also did not know that the elder son of the accused was suffering from mental illness. The accused told him voluntarily that he was tolerating the deceased for about 10 years and therefore, he killed her. He got down from the vehicle while going to Perinthalmanna at T.T.Junction. He has also seen the dog of the accused lying dead on that day. 8. PW10 is another witness residing in the neighbourhood CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-13:- of the accused. The house of PW10 is near to the house of the accused. The distance from the house of PW10 and the accused is 10 - 30 metres. There is no other houses. On 13-1-2002 at 10 - 10.30 a.m. Suhrabi died. PW10 did not see the incident. While he was sitting in his house he heard that PW7 told that Suhrabi was killed by the accused. He went to the market and came back some of his friends. All of them rushed to the house of the accused. When he heard the news, he did not go to that house as he was scared. In the kitchen floor Suhrabi was found lying on her face blood was oozing from the head. The accused was seen cutting the neck of Suhrabi using a sickle. On seeing them, the sickle was placed in the rack and using his hands, he tried to strangulate Suhrabi also. The accused also told them that he is killing Suhrabi and therefore, she need not be taken to the hospital. At that time, there were signs of life in Suhrabi. He used some force and removed the accused from Suhrabi. Later, she was taken to the hospital along with others. Near the kitchen door, he saw a stone using to roll chappathi. He did not see anything. It was he who laid Ext.P9 F.I. statement before CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-14:- the police. He has no animosity towards the accused. He saw blood in the chappathi stone. When the police came, he along with others showed the scene of occurrence. The deceased was a poor lady. He did not know the reason for the incident. In cross examination, he has stated that the accused and his family came there for about 10 years back. There is a distance of about 10 metres between his house and that of the accused. On that day he did not hear any sound from the house of the accused. He came to know the incident on being told by Rejina, PW7. He used to see the accused every day. The accused is not in the habit of talking much. He did not know whether the accused was suffering from mental illness. He did not hear about any quarrel between the accused and Suhrabi. He has not seen the accused and his wife quarrelling on the issue of marriage of her son. When the injured was taken to the hospital, the said witness was asked to stand with the accused. The accused remained without any motions at the relevant time. He did not try to run away or escape. When he saw Suhrabi, there was injury on her head. The domestic dog of the accused was CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-15:- killed by him on that day. PW11 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination and issued Ext.P10 post mortem certificate. As mentioned earlier, in his opinion the injured died of head injuries. PW12, the Sub Inspector of Police recorded the F.I. statement and forwarded Ext.P11 F.I.R. to the court. PW13, the son of the accused turned hostile to the prosecution and he was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court. But he has denied the suggestion of any mental illness for his father. PW14, the elder son of the accused. He has admitted that for some time he was suffering from mental illness. PW15 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and laid the charge before the Magistrate's Court. PW16 is the Circle Inspector of Police who conducted major part of the investigation. 9. The evidence of PW11, the Doctor who held autopsy would prove beyond doubt that Suhrabi, the wife of the accused died of head injuries suffered by her. According to the prosecution, the accused committed the crime. But the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no one has witnessed CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-16:- the incident. Therefore, the conclusion that the death was caused by the accused is unsustainable in law, it is submitted. But, we notice that when PWs.9 and 10 went to the kitchen in the house of the accused, the wife of the accused was found with her face lying flat with head injuries. Blood was oozing from them. The accused was sitting on the floor of that house at the relevant time. Only the accused and her wife alone were present. In that context, going by normal human conduct it can be safely inferred that it was the accused who caused the injury to his wife otherwise the accused had explained who else has caused the injury. But the defence has not attempted to show that the injury was caused by someone else. In the 313 statement of the accused he also does not have any such instance. It is true as pointed out by the defence there are some contradictions in the version of PWs.9 and 10 but whatever be the contradictions. Both of them speak about sighting the wife of the accused lying on the floor of the kitchen with head injuries and the accused sitting beside her. So the discrepancies when they spoke about the details are of no consequences. So from the evidence of PWs.9 CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-17:- and 10 viewed in the background of the absence of any explanation emanating from the accused, it can be safely inferred that it was the accused who caused the injury to his wife Suhrabi. When there is clinching evidence of this nature, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive. The absence of proof or motive will not in any way weaken the case of the prosecution. See in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, 1999 Cri.L.J.2025. In the said decision the Appellate Court held as follows: “33. No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every act was done with a motive, but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-18:- mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. In this context, we may extract the observations made by a Two Judge Bench of this Court (Dr.A.S.Anand, J.-as the learned Chief Justice then was and Thomas,J.)in Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar(1988)9 S.C.C.238:(1997)A.I.R.SCW 1158). 'Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champhell struck a note of caution in R. v. Palmer (Shorthand report at p.308 CCC MAY 1856) thus: 'But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience of criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties.' CRL.A.NO. 243/2005 :-19:- Though, it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant.' (para 17 of SCC: para 16 of AIR).” 10. The next point to be considered is the plea of legal insanity. As mentioned earlier, the benefit of Section 84 can be claimed. If only at the time of commission of the offence by reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that