Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2009

Mariappan                      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu              .... Respondent(s)      

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, J.

1) This appeal has been filed against the final judgment  

and order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Madurai Bench of  

the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2003,  

whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the  

appellant herein and confirmed the order dated 29.08.2003  

passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast  

Track Court No. IV), Madurai at Periakulam in S.C. No. 390 of  

2002.  

1

Page 2

2) Brief facts

a) The case on hand relates to the death of a woman in  

her  house  over  a  land  dispute  by  the  appellant-accused,  

claiming the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian  

Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).  Parvathi @ Kili (the  

deceased), her husband Parasivam Chettiar (PW-6) and their  

grand daughters viz., Chellakili (PW-1) and Parmala (PW-2)  

were living together  at  Ammapatti  village.   The deceased  

was the paternal aunt of the appellant-accused.   

b) There  was  a  dispute  between  the  family  of  the  

appellant-accused and the deceased over a portion of land  

belonging  to  one  Chinnamanur  Pillayar  Kovil,  which  was  

taken on lease by PW-6 through one Chinnamanur Karuvaya  

Pillai.  The family of the appellant-accused claimed that the  

said land was only leased out to them.  When the family of  

the appellant-accused demanded to handover the disputed  

land, PW-6, in turn, after the death of the said Chinnamanur  

Karuvaya Pillai, handed over the land to one Karuppaya Pillai  

(PW-11),  son  of  Karuvaya Pillai  which  resulted  in  strained  

2

Page 3

relationship  between  both  the  families  as  the  appellant-

accused was demanding money for the same.     

c) One  day  prior  to  the  date  of  occurrence,  i.e.,  on  

04.11.2001,  when  PWs  1  and  2  were  also  at  home,  the  

appellant-accused came to the house of the deceased and  

questioned about the whereabouts of PW-6 and also told her  

that they have taken their land and money and threatened  

to kill them.  At that time, PW-5, brother-in-law of PW-6 came  

there  and  pacified  the  appellant-accused.  Thereafter,  the  

appellant-accused  left  the  place  by  saying  that  he  would  

come again tomorrow and warned that if the money is not  

paid, he would kill her and her husband.  

d) On 05.11.2001, at 8.00 a.m., while the deceased was in  

the kitchen,  the appellant-accused entered into the house  

and closed the door from inside.  When PWs 1 & 2 asked  

about the conduct of the appellant-accused, he said that if  

the deceased and her husband are not paying his money, he  

is going to kill them and went to the kitchen.  Thereafter, the  

appellant-accused pulled the tuft of the deceased in his left  

hand and gave a cut on her neck with Aruval and when she  

3

Page 4

warded off with her right hand, it resulted into injuries to her  

fingers.  At that time, PWs 1 & 2 requested the accused to  

leave her.  Again, the accused caught hold of the tuft of her  

in his left hand and gave repeated Aruval blows on her head  

as a result of which she died instantaneously.  Thereafter,  

the accused left the place with Aruval in his hand and after  

opening the door he said that he is going to kill PW-6 also.  

On raising hue and cry by PWs 1 & 2, the neighbors came  

there.  PW-1 along with PW-5 went to the Uthamapalayam  

Police Station and after  recording the statement  given by  

PW-1 the sub-Inspector of Police (PW-16) registered a case  

being  Crime  No.  386  of  2001  for  the  offence  punishable  

under Section 302 of the IPC. On the same day, at 4.30 p.m.,  

the appellant-accused was arrested and the dead body was  

also  sent  for  post  mortem.   After  completion  of  the  

investigation,  a  charge sheet  was  filed  and the  case  was  

committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions  

Judge, (Fast Track Court No. IV) Madurai at Periakulam and  

numbered as Sessions Case No. 390/2002.   

4

Page 5

e) The  Additional  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  by  order  

dated  29.08.2003,  convicted  the  appellant-accused  under  

Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo  

RI for 5 years under Section 449 of IPC along with a fine of  

Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 (one) year  

and to undergo RI for life for the offence under Section 302  

of IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further  

undergo RI for 5 years.  

f) Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  appellant  filed  an  

appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2003 before the  

Madurai  Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court.   By  impugned  

judgment dated 17.10.2006, the High Court dismissed the  

appeal and confirmed the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by  

the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court  

No. IV), Madurai.   

g) Against the said order, the appellant-accused has filed  

this appeal by way of special leave petition.

5

Page 6

3) Heard  Mr.  Anil  Shrivastav,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant and Mr. M. Yogesh Khanna, learned counsel for the  

respondent-State.  

4) The  one  and  only  contention  projected  by  learned  

counsel for the appellant-accused is that at the time of the  

alleged incident, the accused was suffering from “Paranoid  

Schizophrenia” and, hence, he is entitled to the benefit of  

exception under Section 84 of IPC.  

Discussion:

5) Before considering the above issue,  it  is  to be noted  

that  whether  the  prosecution  has  established  the  guilt  

against the accused by examining PWs 1 and 2, the grand  

daughters of the deceased Parvathi, as eye-witnesses.  It is  

the evidence of PW-6 – husband of the deceased that one  

day before the date of incident, when PWs 1 and 2 were at  

home  along  with  his  wife-Parvathi,  the  appellant-accused  

came  to  their  house  and  demanded  money  and  also  

threatened her before leaving the place that he would come  

again tomorrow and if money is not paid, he would kill both  

6

Page 7

the deceased and her husband PW-6.  It is also stated by  

PWs 1 and 2 that on the next day, at 8.00 a.m., when the  

deceased  was  cooking  food  in  the  kitchen,  the  accused  

trespassed into the house, bolted the door from inside and,  

thereafter,  caused fatal  injuries  to  the  deceased with  the  

Aruval.  It is further stated that on raising hue and cry, PWs 3  

and  4,  the  neighbours,  came  at  the  spot  and  saw  the  

accused running from the house with aruval.   

6) The evidence of PWs 3 and 5-the neighbours,  proves  

the occurrence that had happened one day prior to the date  

of  the  incident  and  also  the  shoutings  of  the  accused-

appellant threatening and demanding money.  PW-6 has also  

explained in his evidence about the dispute relating to the  

lease of the temple land through one Chinnamanur Kuruvaya  

Pillai and handing over the said land to PW-11, son of the  

said  Chinnamanur  Kuruvaya  Pillai.   According  to  PW-6,  

because of the said land,  there were strained relationship  

between the two families for more than 10 years and the  

appellant-accused used to quarrel with him and his wife as  

7

Page 8

to how the land leased out to their family could be handed  

over to PW-11 and was demanding money for the same.   

7) The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 – the eye-witnesses, the  

evidence of PWs 3 and 4, who saw the accused running after  

the occurrence with Aruval (M.O.1) and the recovery of the  

weapon at the instance of the accused which was found to  

be  stained  with  human  blood  of  “O”  group,  as  per  the  

serologist report (Ex.P.12), tallied with the blood group of the  

deceased as the clothes of the deceased viz., M.O.s 1 to 4  

were also stained with human blood “O” group clearly prove  

the case of the prosecution.  Further, the medical evidence  

through PW-9-the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem  

and issued the report (Ex.P-3) strengthened the version of  

PWs 1 and 2.  

8) From the materials analyzed, discussed and concluded  

by the trial Court and the High Court, it clearly establishes  

that  it  was  the  accused-appellant  who  committed  the  

murder.  

8

Page 9

9) Coming  to  the  only  contention  put-forward  by  the  

appellant-accused  that  the  accused  was  suffering  from  

Paranoid  Schizophrenia,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

placed reliance on the evidence of DW-1-the Doctor attached  

to  Government  Rajaji  Hosital,  Madurai  who  treated  the  

accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001.  In his evidence,  

DW-1  has  stated  that  the  accused  was  suffering  from  

Paranoid  Schizophrenia.   The  other  material  relied  on  in  

support of the plea of insanity is  Ex.  D-2,  the termination  

order  of  the  Inspector  General  of  Police,  Northern  Sector,  

CRPF,  New Delhi  wherein  it  is  stated  that  the  accused  is  

medically  unfit  for  service  in  CRPF  due  to  Paranoid  

Schizophrenia.  It is further contended that the appellant has  

also relied on the statement of PW-2, grand-daughter of the  

deceased, that the wife of the accused obtained divorce on  

the ground that the accused was mentally ill.  

10) Since  the  appellant  has  raised  the  plea  of  insanity  

seeking protection under Section 84 of the IPC, it is useful to  

refer the same:  

9

Page 10

“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 act, or that he is doing what is  either wrong or contrary to law.”   

The above section makes it clear that a person, who, at the  

time  of  doing  it, by  reason  of  unsoundness  of  mind,  

commits  anything,  he  is  permitted  to  claim  the  above  

exception. (emphasis supplied).  In other words, insanity or  

unsoundness  of  mind  are  the  stages  when  a  person  is  

incapable  of  knowing  the  nature  of  the  act  or  unable  to  

understand what is  wrong or right and must relate to the  

period in which the offence has been committed.  

11) It  is  also  useful  to  refer  Section  105  of  the  Indian  

Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:  

“105. 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.”

Though the burden of proving an offence is always on the  

prosecution  and  never  shifts,  however,  the  existence  of  

10

Page 11

circumstances bringing the case within the exception under  

Section 84 IPC lies on the accused.

12) With these provisions, let us examine whether at the  

time  of  the  incident,  the  accused  was  suffering  from  

unsoundness of mind, i.e., on 05.11.2001.  

13) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-accused  heavily  

relied on the decision of this Court in  Shrikant Anandrao  

Bhosale vs.  State  of  Maharashtra,  (2002)  7  SCC  748  

wherein this Court considered the similar issue.  A reference  

made  from  Modi’s  Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology,  

22nd Edition,  as  quoted  in  paras  10  and  11  are  relevant,  

which reads thus:

“10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what  are  its  characteristics  and  dangers  flowing  from  this  ailment?  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  

11

Page 12

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.”

14) It  is  useful  to refer the decision relied on by learned  

counsel for the State i.e. Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerala,  

(2010) 10 SCC 582.  The facts in that case are identical to  

the case on hand.  Here again, this Court referred to Modi’s  

Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology,  23rd  Edition  about  

paranoid schizophrenia.  The following statement in paras 26  

and 28 are relevant:

“26. The defence of insanity has been well known in the  English  legal  system  for  many  centuries.  In  the  earlier  times, it was usually advanced as a justification for seeking  pardon. Over a period of time, it was used as a complete  

12

Page 13

defence to criminal liability in offences involving mens rea.  It  is  also  accepted  that  insanity  in  medical  terms  is  distinguishable from legal insanity. In most cases, in India,  the defence of  insanity  seems to be pleaded where  the  offender  is  said  to  be  suffering  from  the  disease  of  schizophrenia.

28. The medical  profession would undoubtedly  treat the  appellant herein as a mentally sick person. However,  for  the  purposes  of  claiming  the  benefit  of  the  defence  of  insanity in law, the appellant would have to prove that his  cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the  crime was committed,  as not  to know the nature of  the  act.”

15)  After  adverting  to  Sections  84  and  299  IPC  and  

Sections  105  and  101  of  the  Evidence  Act,  this  Court  

concluded  that  “when  a  person  is  bound  to  prove  the  

existence  of  any  fact,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  that  

person”.  This Court also held as under:

“35. It is also a settled proposition of law that the crucial  point  of  time  for  ascertaining  the  existence  of  circumstances  bringing  the  case  within  the  purview  of  Section 84 is the time when the offence is committed. We  may notice here the observations made by this Court in  Ratan  Lal v.  State  of  M.P. In  para  2  of  the  aforesaid  judgment, it is held as follows:  

“It is now well settled that the crucial point of time at  which unsoundness of mind should be established is  the time when the crime is actually committed and  the burden of proving this lies on the [appellant].”

13

Page 14

As  concluded,  we  also  reiterate  that  at  the  time  of  

commission of offence, the physical and mental condition of  

the  person  concerned is  paramount  for  bringing  the  case  

within the purview of Section 84.  

16) In  the  case  on  hand,  though  the  Doctor  (DW-1)  

attached with the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who  

treated  the  accused  from  11.07.2001  to  08.08.2001  has  

stated  that  the  appellant-accused  was  suffering  from  

paranoid  schizophrenia,  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  after  

08.08.2001,  there is  no material  or  information on record  

that  he  was  suffering  from  the  same.   It  is  relevant  to  

mention  that  the  date  of  occurrence  was  05.11.2001  i.e.  

nearly after three months of the treatment by DW-1.  In the  

same way, Ex. D-2, the termination order of the Inspector  

General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi is also  

not helpful because of the language used in Section 84 of  

IPC.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  DW-2,  father  of  the  accused-

appellant has not stated anything about the behaviour of the  

deceased.  He  has  also  not  stated  anything  that  he  is  a  

mentally  ill  person  and  not  able  to  do  his  routine  works  

14

Page 15

properly.  In fact, it was brought to our notice that in Ex. D-2,  

which is a letter  from the Department,  it  is seen that the  

appellant-accused  made  a  written  request  for  rejoining  

stating improvement in his health.   

17) It is also relevant to note that the appellant came to the  

house one day prior  to the occurrence,  demanded money  

and threatened the deceased of grave consequences and on  

the  next  day,  when  the  demand  was  not  fulfilled,  he  

trespassed into the house, pushed away PWs 1 and 2, bolted  

the door from inside and inflicted repeated aruval blows on  

the deceased resulted into her death.  All these aspects also  

show that at the relevant time, he was not insane as claimed  

by him.  

18) Another  factor  which  goes  against  the  appellant-

accused  is  that  he  himself  was  examined  as  a  defence  

witness No.3.  According to learned trial Judge, as a witness,  

he made his statement clearly and cogently and it was also  

observed  that  he  was  meticulously  following  the  court  

proceedings,  acting  suitably  when  the  records  were  

15

Page 16

furnished for perusal.  The trial Judge has also pointed out  

that during the entire proceedings, the accused has nowhere  

stated that he was insane earlier to the date of incident.  The  

trial  Judge,  after  noting  his  answers  in  respect  of  the  

questions  under  Section  313  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure, 1973 has concluded that the accused could not  

be termed as an “insane” person.  

19) In the light of the above discussion and in view of the  

materials  placed  and  the  decision  arrived  at  by  the  trial  

Court and of  the fact  that  there is  no evidence as to  the  

unsoundness of mind of the appellant-accused at the time of  

the occurrence, namely, on 05.11.2001 and also taking note  

of the fact that the accused failed to discharge the burden as  

stated in Section 105 of the Evidence Act,  we fully  agree  

with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed  

by the High Court.   

20) Consequently,  the  appeal  fails  and  the  same  is  

dismissed.                     

16

Page 17

………….…………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (M.Y. EQBAL)  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 18, 2013.

17