ELAVARASAN V. STATE REP.

BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

CASE PRESENTATION

IPC 1- INTERNAL ASSESSMENT-2

Submitted by-

NAME : AAKASH BATRA

PRN : 18010125355

COURSE : B.A LL.B.(Hons.) II Year

DIVISION : D
 Fact matrix

The facts of the case are that the Appellant was residing in a house situated at Yadwal Street,
Poovam Koticherri, Distt. Karaikal, Tamil Nadu. Apart from his wife Smt. Dhanalakshmi, and
his daughter Abirami, aged about 1 1/2 years, his mother Smt. Valli, also lived with him. On the
fateful night at about 1 p.m. the Appellant is alleged to have started a quarrel with his wife
accusing her of having brought misfortune to him ever since she got married to him. The
immediate provocation for making that accusation was his inability to sell the property owned by
his mother, as the Revenue entries relating the same stood in the name of Kannan, the paternal
uncle of the Appellant, who it appears was not agreeable to the sale of the property. The quarrel
between the husband and the wife took an ugly turn when the Appellant made a murderous
assault on his wife, Dhanalakshmi causing several injuries to her including those on her head,
left hand, right cheek and other parts of the body. Intervention of Vali who is none other than the
mother of the Appellant also did not stop the Appellant from assaulting his wife. In the process
injuries were caused even to the mother. Due to the ruckus caused by the quarrel and the assault
on the two women, Abirami who was sleeping in the adjacent room woke up and started crying.
The Appellant at that stage is alleged to have gone inside the room and hit the deceased resulting
in her death.

ISSUES-

WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 84 OF IPC.

The following are the Sections explained in the instant case:

Section 302, Indian Penal Code 1860- Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall
be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 307, Indian Penal Code 1860- Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person
by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment
as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—[When any person offending under
this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished
with death.]

Section 342, Indian Penal Code 1860 - Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever
wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.

Section 84, Indian Penal Code 1860 - 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 act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to
law.

Section 105, Indian Evidence Act 1872- Burden of proving that case of accused comes within
exceptions.—When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code,
(45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same
Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence
of such circumstances.
 ANALYSIS

The trial court rejected the plea for insanity and the same was affirmed by the High Court of
Madras. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of his child baby
Abirami and to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
342 IPC and 10 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-for each of the
offences punishable under Section 307 (2 counts). The sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.

Learned counsel from the Appellant’s side submitted that the material on record sufficiently
proved the plea of insanity set up by the Appellant at the trial. Reliance in support was placed by
the learned Counsel upon the deposition of Dr. P. Srinivasan, CW1, according to whom the
Appellant was a person of unsound mind. He also drew our attention to the deposition of other
witnesses to argue that the Appellant had been treated by a Psychiatrist and had been taking
medicines for his illness. Reliance in particular was placed by the learned Counsel upon the
contents of Ex.P.3 the observation Mahazar which refers to certain writings on the walls of the
Appellant's house suggesting that the Appellant was mentally unsound even at the time of
commission of crime. From the graffiti, it was according to Mr. Mani evident that the Appellant
suffered from insanity before and at the time of the incident. Mr. Mani further argued that
murderous assault on his wife, his mother and child without any ostensible reason was itself
suggestive of the Appellant being an insane person.

On behalf of the respondent, the counsel contended that there was no credible evidence to
establish legal insanity at the time of the commission of the offence so as to entitle the Appellant
to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. The burden to prove insanity rests upon the accused. The
burden which rests on the accused to prove the exception 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.

The accused when he was examined by the consultant psychiatrist was found to have paranoid
psychosis so the same doctor referred him to a clinical psychologist. He was sent to JIPMAR
Hospital at Pondicherry and remained under the observation of a doctor for few days.
After examining the relevant record the witness deposed that the Appellant did not have any
Psychataxia symptoms. In the detailed report proved by the witness the medical condition of the
Appellant is described as under: “He was well groomed. Rapport was established. No abnormal
motoric behavior was present. He was cooperative. His mood appeared euthymic and speech was
normal. There was no evidence of formal thought disorder or disorder of possession or thought
content. No perceptual disorder was evident. Attention was arousable and concentration well
sustained. He was oriented to time, place, person. The immediate recall, recent and remote
memory was intact. Abstraction was at functional level. Judgment was preserved. Insight was
present.”

It is true that while determining whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C.
the Court has to consider the circumstances that proceeded, attended or followed the crime but it
is equally true that such circumstances must be established by credible evidence. No such
evidence has been led in this case.

Conviction and sentence under Sec. 34 IPC has not been altered. He is also convicted under 307
IPC but the sentence has been reduced to 7 years from 10 years. However, the conviction under
302 IPC is not justified as in the present case it was not murder but a case of culpable homicide
because the quarrel and hitting was sudden and not pre-mediated, also and the Appellant did not
evidently use a sharp weapon to kill.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that in the instant case, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section
84 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence to prove legal insanity and the medical witness
has also proved in the report that he does not see any signs of Unsoundness of mind. Also, only
the fact that he did not run away after committing the crime and the paintings on the wall can not
be taken up as an excuse to prove Insanity and unsoundness of mind.