Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

Madras High Court

Madras High Court
Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009
DATED: 8.9.2009

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL

Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2008

Ramesh alias Ramesh Babu .. Appellant/Accused

Vs.

State, represented by

Inspector of Police,

St. Thomas Mount Police Station

Chennai.

(Crime No.846/2006) .. Respondent/Complainant

***

Prayer : Appeal against the Judgment, dated 30.9.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.285 of 2007 on the file of
the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chengalpattu.

***

For Appellant :: Mr. S.Ashok Kumar

Senior Counsel

for Mr.G.Saravana Kumar

For Respondent :: Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

Appellant Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.285 of 2007 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chengalpattu, and he has preferred this appeal
challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by judgment dated 30.9.2008 in the case. For the
sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 1
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

2. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charge under Section
302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1. to 9.

4. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly
summarised as follows.

P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan is a Salesman and P.W.2 Lily Mary is the Book-shopper of the Book Stall in the Church
situated in St.Thomas Mount. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy is the school van driver of the Church. The deceased
Jacob alias Jacob Fernando was the Manager of the Church. On 26.11.2006, at 4.45 p.m., P.W.1 Gilbert
Mohan and P.W.2 Lily Mary were in the Book Stall and Manager Jacob came there and told them that the
Father wanted the Bible and while P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan was taking the Bible, the accused Ramesh @
Ramesh Babu with a beard, hippie hair style and a cloth tied on the head came there with a leather bag and
asked for the Manager and on seeing Jacob, asked him as to whether the Mount can be given or not and
Manager Jacob told him to go and meet the Father. Immediately, the accused Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu took
M.O.1 Chopper knife and threw away its cover and cut Jacob Fernando on the left shoulder. Jacob ran
towards Manager room and the accused Ramesh Babu chased and caught hold of him and cut him on his head,
neck, ear and all over the body indiscriminately with M.O.1 Chopper knife and Manager Jacob fell down with
bleeding injuries. The accused Ramesh Babu took the oozing blood and put the same on his forehead as
'Thilak' and ran away from the place. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 Gilbert
Mohan and P.W.2 Lily Mary went and informed the Father and injured Jacob Fernando was taken in a car to
Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital and P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan also went there.

Dr. Bala Murugan examined Jacob Fernando at 4.45 p.m. on 26.11.2006 in Sri Ramachandra Hospital and
found the following injuries -

"1. Triangular shaped lax laceration 25 x 12 x 5 cm with base extending from left ear running through
the mid-axilla up to angle of mouth from there extending below till upper 3rd of neck exposing the bones,
muscles, vessels with diffuse gushing of blood.

2. Triangular shaped lax laceration 8 x 4 x 2 cm with base over upper neck extending up to chin, exposing the
base and muscles.

3. Penetrating wound over left shoulder 2 x 1 cm.

4. Fully cut and severed lower end of left fore arm hanging by the skin of the radial side.

5. L/W right palm 4 x 1 x 1cm.

6. Linear abrasion 30 x 1cm over left side of chest."

Ex.P6 is the Accident Register issued by him. Jacob Fernando died in the hospital.

P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan went to St. Thomas Mount Police Station at 7.15 p.m. on 26.11.2006 and gave Ex.P1
Complaint and P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran received the same and registered a case in Crime
No. 846/2006 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P11 Printed First Information Report and despatched
the same to the Court. He went to the occurrence place and prepared Ex.P12 Observation Mahazar in the
presence of Charles and Samidurai and Ex.P13 is the Rough sketch drawn by him. He seized M.O.8-series
Blood stained earth and Sample earth under Ex.P14 Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. He
examined P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan, P.W.2 Lily Mary, P.W.3 Adaikalasamy and some other witnesses and
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 2
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

recorded their statements. He went to S.R.M.C. Hospital and took M.O.9-series Photographs of the body
through Photographer Panneer Selvam. On 27.11.2006, he conducted inquest on the body in the presence of
panchayatars and prepared Ex.P15 Inquest Report. He sent the body to Government Hospital, Tambaram, for
post-mortem through Head constable Thiagarajan by giving requisition.

P.W.8 Dr. Leena conducted autopsy on the body at 2.00 p.m. on 27.11.2006 and found the following -

" 1. Large lacerated injury of size 25 cm x 3 cm over the left side face, mandible and maxillary region
exposing the muscles and bone. The injury extends backward up to the back of the head occipital region
with the ear lobe.

2. Cut injury parallel to the previous injury of size 15 cm x 3 cm located over the upper aspect of the neck
on the left side exposing the muscles and bone extending backward.

3. Fractured earlobe cut into two.

4. Inverted 'U' shaped lacerated injury of size over the upper aspect of the right side of neck exposing the
underlying muscles.

5. Penetrating injury (up to the bone) of size 5 cm x 1 cm over the left shoulder joint.

6. Superficial (skin deep) cut injury over the back of left shoulder 13 x 1cm.

7. Fully cut injury over the distal end of left forearm resulting in the extremity being severed completely
except being attacked by the skin. Both bones of left fore-arm fractured.

8. Cut injury fore-arm 5 x 2 cm. Distal to the previous one. (left fore-arm).

9. Cut injury over the medial aspect of the left palm, metacarpal bones.

10. Cut injury over the distal aspect of the left palm 8 cm left.

11. Cut injury involving middle of the right palm.

Appearance:

Eyes closed. Mouth partially open, Tongue inside mouth, clotted blood around here and herewith.

Chest:

Cut injury Superficial skin deep on the left side chest below the axilla (4 cm)

Rib cage:

Fractured ribs 2, 3, 4 on the left side.

Fractured ribs 3, 4, 5 on the right side.

Hyoid Intact. Trachea free. Heart Pale, empty.

Lung : Pale. 2cm laceration with frothy haemorrhage on the left side lung.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 3

 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

Stomach:

Pale contains 350 gms of partly digested food. Intestine, Liver, Spleen-pale, Kidney-pale. Bladder-empty.
Skull bones intact. Membranes intact. Brain Pale. Base of skull intact.

Viscera, Stomach and content, Liver, Kidney, Spleen sent for chemical analysis.

Blood could not be collected as there wasn't any blood or blood clots."

She expressed opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage shock due to injury to
vital structures. Ex.P7 is Post-mortem Certificate issued by her.

P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran arrested the accused Ramesh Babu at 11.30 a.m. on 27.11.2006 in
the junction of Ponniamman Koil Street and Pudupet at Alandur and enquired him in the presence of P.W.5
Sugumaran and another and recorded the confession statement given by him in the presence of the said
witnesses. Ex.P2 is the Admissible portion. The accused Ramesh Babu produced M.O.4 SUZUKI Motor
cycle, M.O.7 Knife with a cover and the cloth tied on the head and P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran
recovered them under Ex.P4 Mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses. The accused Ramesh Babu took
them to his house bearing Door No.26, 8th Street, New Colony, Adambakkam, and produced M.O.1 Blood
stained Chopper Knife, M.O.2-series Clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence, M.O.5-series Passports
and the Letter written by him and M.O.6-series Knives and P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran
recovered them at 1.40 p.m. under Ex.P3 Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. P.W.11 Inspector D.
Arockiya Raveendran examined P.W.4 Mohideen, who stitched the covers for the knives on consideration
paid by the accused Ramesh Babu, and recorded his statement. He sent the accused Ramesh Babu for judicial
remand. He seized M.O.3-series clothes of the deceased taken from the body and produced before him under
Ex.P16 Form 95. He obtained sample hand-writing of the accused Ramesh Babu and sent the properties to the
Court on 28.11.2006. On 30.11.2006, he gave requisition for conducting Identification Parade for the
witnesses and as per the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, P.W.6 Judicial Magistrate Ravindran
conducted the Identification Parade on 7.12.2006 for P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan, P.W.2 Lily Mary and two other
witnesses. Ex.P5-series is the Report of the Proceedings. P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran gave
Ex.P17 Requisition for sending the documents for comparison to the hand-writing Expert. P.W.10 Thamarai
Selvan, Scientific Assistant Gr.I and Document Expert, compared the hand-writings and issued Ex.P10
Report. The properties were sent for Chemical Examination and Ex.P10 Chemical Examination Report and
Ex.P18 Serology Report were received in the Court. As per the Order of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur, P.W.11 Inspector D. Arockiya Raveendran sent the accused Ramesh Babu to the Mental Hospital at
Kilpauk, Chennai 10, and Ex.P19 is the O.P. Chit issued by them. He completed the investigation on
29.12.2006 and filed the Final Report against the accused.

5. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and he denied complicity. D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined
and Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked on their side.

6. The trial Court found the first accused guilty of the charge of murder and sentenced him as stated earlier.
Challenging the same, he has preferred the present appeal.

7. The prosecution case is that the accused Ramesh alias Ramesh Babu indiscriminately cut Jacob alias Jacob
Fernando with M.O.1-Chopper Knife, resulting in his death, at the time of occurrence P.Ws.1 to 3 have been
examined as having witnessed the occurrence. PW.1 Gilbert Mohan is the Salesman of the Book Stall in the
Church situated in St.Thomas Mount and PW.2 Lily Mary is the Book-shopper. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy is the
school van driver of the Church. Jacob alias Jacob Fernando was the Manager of the Church. According to
P.Ws.1 and 2, on 26.11.2006 at 4.45 pm, they were in the Book Stall and Manager Jacob came there and told
them that the Father wanted the Bible and while P.W.1.Gilbert Mohan was taking the Bible, the accused
Ramesh Babu with a beard, hippie hair style and a cloth tied on the head came there with a leather bag and
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 4
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

asked for the Manager and on seeing Jacob, asked him as to whether the Mountain can be given or not and
Jacob told him to go and meet the Father and immediately the accused Ramesh Babu took out M.O.1 Chopper
Knife and threw away its cover and cut Jacob on the left shoulder and Jacob ran towards Manager room and
the accused chased and caught hold of him and cut him indiscriminately with M.O.1 Chopper Knife on his
head, neck, ear and other parts of the body and Jacob fell down with bleeding injuries and the accused took
the oozing blood and put the same on his forehead as 'Thilak' and ran away with weapon and they took Jacob
to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital and he died there and PW.1 Gilbert Mohan lodged Ex.P1
Complaint in St.Thomas Mount Police Station. P.W.3 Adaikalasamy has also testified that while he was
talking with Alamelu in front of the Church, he saw injured Jacob running to Manager room, chased and
attacked by the accused with Chopper knife.

8. P.W.1 Gilbert Mohan and PW.2 Lily Mary are the employees of the Book Stall in the Church and PW.3
Adaikalasamy is the school van driver of the Church and their presence in the occurrence place is natural and
they have testified about the attack made by the accused with Chopper Knife on their Manager Jacob resulting
in bleeding injuries. P.Ws.1 and 2 have also identified the accused in the Identification Parade. P.W.6 Judicial
Magistrate Mr.Ravindran conducted Identification Parade on 7.12.2006 for four witnesses and P.Ws.1 and 2
identified the accused Ramesh Babu in all the formations. Ex.P5 (series) is the Report of the Proceedings of
the Identification Parade. It is relevant to note that the Identification Parade was held on the eleventh day from
the occurrence and P.Ws.1 and 2 have pointed out the accused correctly. This corroborates their testimony in
Court. The testimonies of ocular witnesses are natural, cogent and convincing besides being trustworthy and
deserve acceptance.

9. It has to be seen as to whether Jacob died of injuries sustained. Immediately after the occurrence, Jacob was
taken to S.R.M.C. Hospital and Dr.Balamurugan examined him. Dr.Balamurugan had gone abroad and P.W.7
Dr.Sheban knew his signature and he has testified on his behalf. Dr.Balamurugan found laceration with base
extending from left ear till upper 3rd of neck exposing bones, muscles, vessels with diffuse gushing of blood;
another laceration over upper neck extending upto chin; a penetrating wound over left shoulder; cut and
severed lower end of left forearm hanging and injuries on right palm and left side of chest. Ex.P6 is the
Accident Register issued by him stating that the injuries are life threatening. According to P.Ws.1 to 3, Jacob
died in the same hospital. P.W.8 Dr.Leena had conducted autopsy on the body and the doctor has testified that
she saw a large lacerated injury over the left side face extending upto back of the head occipital region; cut
injury parallel to the previous injury on the left side of the neck; fractured earlobe; another lacerated injury
over the right side of neck; Penetrating injury over the left shoulder joint; cut injuries over the back of left
shoulder, over the left forearm; and cut injuries over the left palm and right palm and on the internal
examination, found ribs on both sides of the lungs fractured with frothy haemorrhage. She expressed opinion
that the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage shock due to injuries to vital structures and
issued Ex.P7 Post-mortem Certificate. From the medical evidence, it is established that Jacob died of
homicidal violence.

10. The accused is said to have given information leading to recovery of weapon of offence. The Investigation
Officer PW.11 Arockiya Raveendran deposed that he arrested the accused Ramesh Babu at 11.30 am on
27.11.2006 in the junction of Ponniamman Koil Street and Pudupet at Alandur and enquired him in the
presence of P.W.5 Sugumaran and another and recorded the confession statement, containing Ex.P2
admissible portion, given by him and the accused took them to his house and took and produced M.O.1 Blood
stained Chopper Knife along with other material objects and he recovered them under Ex.P3 mahazar in the
presence of same witnesses. The mahazar witness P.W.5 Sugumaran has confirmed in his testimony that the
accused gave information in his presence and took and produced M.O.1 Chopper Knife along with other
material objects from his house and they were recovered in his presence. M.O.1 Blood stained Chopper Knife
was sent to chemical examination along with other material objects and human 'B' group bood was detected in
M.O.3 (series) clothes of the deceased and the same human 'B' group bood was detected in M.O.1 Chopper
Knife as evident from Ex.P8 Chemical examiner report and Ex.P18 Serologist report. MO.1 Chopper Knife
has been identified by PW.1 Gilbert Mohan as having been used by the accused Ramesh Babu to attack Jacob.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 5
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

Hence it is clear that MO.1 Chopper Knife is the weapon of offence.

11. The ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses about the attack made by the accused on Jacob is corroborated
by medical evidence also. In fact, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, did
not seriously dispute the occurrence.

12. The only contention of Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the
appellant was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a major mental illness and the appellant has established
the same by examining doctors, producing medical record and the circumstances which preceded, attendant
and followed the crime and he was suffering from insanity and he was not fully aware of his activities and its
consequences and he is entitled to the benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 IPC and the
conviction and sentence imposed on him cannot be sustained. He placed reliance on the following decisions of
the Supreme Court.

13. The first decision relied on is DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI THAKKAR V. STATE OF GUJARAT
[AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1563] and Their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down the following propositions
with regard to the burden of proof on the plea of insanity: "Para 7. 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
rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down
by S. 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. In the next decision in RATAN LAL V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [1970 (3) Supreme
Court Cases 533], the Supreme Court while dealing with the plea of unsoundness of mind raised by the
accused in a charge relating to mischief by fire, held that the accused had discharged the burden by examining
the defence witnesses. The relevant portions in the above decision are extracted below: "Para 10. The
High Court thought that the evidence of the two defence witnesses only suggested an irrational behaviour on
the part of the accused. The High Court failed to note that, according to D.W.2, the appellant used to set fire to
his own clothes and house, and this could hardly be called irrational; it is more like verging on insanity. Para
11. The High Court also felt it rather unsafe to rely on the testimony of the two defence witnesses because
such evidence could always be procured. .......

Para 12. ......

Para 13. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. We hold that the
appellant has discharged the burden. There is no reason why the evidence of Shyam Lal, D.W.1, and Than
Singh, D.W.2, should not be believed. ............ Para 14. We accordingly allow the appeal and acquit the
appellant of the offence under Section 435, I.P.C., because at the time of the incident he was a person of
unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code."

15. Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, strongly relied on the decision of
the Supreme Court in SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [AIR 2002
SUPREME COURT 3399]. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
"Para 19. The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 6

 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

1. The appellant has a family history his father was suffering from psychiatric illness.

2. Cause of ailment not known hereditary plays a part.

3. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia.

4. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for
treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital.

5. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.

6. The weak motive of killing of wife being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job
of a Police Constable.

7. Killing in day light no attempt to hide or run away.

Para 20. .......... In the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but it is the totality of the
circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant was suffering from
paranoid schizophrenia. The unsoundness of mind before and after incident is a relevant fact. From the
circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably drawn that the appellant was under a
delusion at the relevant time. He was under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has
been placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the
appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by
Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime
was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission
of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind
and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant
cannot be sustained."

16. Per contra, Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no
medical record produced to show the appellant/accused was suffering from mental illness during the period
from 29.6.2005 to 3.2.2007 and the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence has to
be proved by the accused so as to get the benefit of the exception and the accused had failed to prove the same
and the accused purchased cover for the Chopper Knife and came to the occurrence place concealing the same
in the leather bag and after meeting Jacob, took it out and attacked Jacob indiscriminately and ran away with
the Chopper Knife and he is capable of understanding the nature of his act and knew what he was doing was
wrong and the legal insanity is not proved and the protection under Section 84 IPC cannot be applied to the
present case and supported the judgment of conviction. In support of his submission, he relied on the recent
decisions of the Apex Court mentioned below.

"1) BAPU ALIAS GUJRAJ SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [(2007) 3 SCC (Crl) 509].

2) HARI SINGH GOND V. STATE OF M.P. [2008 (12) SCALE 102].

3) SIDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 471]."

17. In all the decisions, His Lordship, Dr.Arijit Pasayat, J., spoke for the Bench and the law laid down in the
first decision is verbatim reproduced in the subsequent two decisions.

18. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the decision in BAPU'S CASE (cited supra) considered the scope of
Section 84 I.P.C for exonerating a person from liability and laid down as follows:
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 7
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

" Para 7. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind.
There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated
this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" itself has no precise definition. It
is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is
not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and
medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. ......... Para 8. Under
Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if
he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing
what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he
was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong
or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not
protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law,
and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was
wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation
previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a
medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious
infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however,
has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and
his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant
factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also
presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. Para 9. ..........

Para 10. .........

Para 11. The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of
committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not
to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong
or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit
of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that
conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the
defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of
mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from
criminal responsibility. Stephen in History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. II, p.166 has observed that if
a person cuts off the head of a sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he
woke up, would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of knowing the
physical effects of his act. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and
presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is
doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive
for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the
case within this section. ...........

Para 12. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a
psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based
on the outdated M'Naughton rules of 19th century England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the
same as those laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords, in
M'Naughton's case ((1843) 4 St Tr NS 847 (HL)). Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the
event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that
remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of
the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it
or immediately after the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a
cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to
enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 8
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person
concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a
cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient. Para 13. The standard to be applied is
whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere
fact that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and
mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and
will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past, or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity
at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his
behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this
section."

19. The settled law is that the onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused and it has to be
discharged by producing evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors shortly prior to the
occurrence and at the time or immediately afterwards.

20. The evidence let in by the accused Ramesh Babu with regard to his mental condition shortly prior to the
occurrence is in the form of oral testimonies of DW.1 Dr.Bashyam and DW.3 Shanthi and the medical record.
DW.3 Shanthi is the mother of the accused and according to her, the accused studied in Hindu Vidyalaya
school and thereafter joined B.E. Mechanical Course in Anna University and got employment in the campus
interview at Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Limited, Manali and studied M.S in SPIC and after serving ten years
at TPL, suddenly he declared that he is Kalki Bhagavan and would not go for employment and he used to read
religious books like 'Thevaram', 'Dhiviyabharatham' and would state that his brain waves have been taken in
the computer and being viewed by others and would speak loudly and thereafter she took him to Malar
Hospitals on 4.8.2003 and 30.9.2003 and they prescribed medicines under Ex.D5 (series) to be taken life long.

21. The first document in Ex.D5 (series) is a Medical prescription dated 6.8.2003 in letter pad of Malar
Hospitals mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu, aged 33 of Adambakkam, employed in TPL
and it is further mentioned in it that on a voyage of self discovery Kalki; lack of sleep; pain neck; pulling
sensation of legs; restlessness; mind being manipulated; confusing thinking pattern and being monitored and
drugs have been prescribed.

The second document in Ex.D5 (series) is drug prescription dated 23.9.2003 prescribed by Dr.Rangarajan to
patient Ramesh mentioning the names of five drugs.

The third document in Ex.D5 (series) is the cash bill dated 6.8.2003 of Adayar Drug House mentioning the
name of the drug sold.

The fourth document in Ex.D5 (series) is a prescription dated 23.2.2005 given by Dr.N.Rangarajan to patient
Ramesh mentioning three drugs. Dr.Rangarajan has not been examined by the accused.

22. It is further stated by DW.3 Shanthi that the accused refused to take the drug by saying that he is God and
hence she took him to Coimbatore and showed him to Dr.Balasubramani and he treated him and Ex.D6
(series) are the medical record.

The first document in Ex.D6 (series) is Appointment Card of Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited,
Avanashi Road, Coimbatore, dated 11.9.2003, mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu and his
address as Adambakkam, Chennai and mentioning the name of the Doctor as Dr.Srinivasan, Consultant in
Psychological Medicine, KMCH, Coimbatore and the dates mentioned are 11.9.2003, 18.9.2003, 25.9.2003
and 9.3.2005. The second document in Ex.D6 (series) is Medicine Prescription dated 11.9.2003 of Kovai
Medical Center and Hospital Limited mentioning the names of three drugs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 9

 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

The third document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill, dated 11.9.2003, for having paid Registration Fees to
the hospital. The fourth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill, dated 11.9.2003, for having paid the
doctor fees to Dr.Srinivasan. The fifth document in Ex.D6 (series) is Medicine Prescription dated 18.9.2003,
in which, Dr.Srinivasan had prescribed a drug. The sixth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated
18.9.2003 of Pharmacy Division, KMCH, Coimbatore mentioning the name of the drug sold to Ramesh Babu.
The seventh document in Ex.D6 (series) is Cash Bill dated 18.9.2003 for having paid the Doctor Fees to
Dr.Srinivasan. The eighth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Medicine Prescription dated 9.2.2005 of KMCH,
in which, Dr.Srinivasan has prescribed three drugs to Ramesh Babu. The ninth document in Ex.D6 (series) is
the Cash Bill dated 9.2.2005 of Pharmacy Division, KMCH mentioning the names of drugs of sold to Ramesh
Babu. The tenth document in Ex.D6 (series) is the Cash Bill dated 9.2.2005 of KMCH for having paid Doctor
Fees to Dr.Srinivasan. At this juncture it is relevant to point out that Dr.Srinivasan was not examined by the
accused.

23. DW.3 Shanthi has further stated that she took the accused Ramesh Babu to Dr.Bashyam for one year and
the Doctor declared him fit to go for employment and directed the accused to continuously take the drug and
warned him that in case of discontinuance of drug, the problem would arise.

24. Dr.Bashyam retired as the Director of Government Mental Hospital in the year 1997 and was doing
private practice and he has been examined as DW.1. According to DW.1 Dr.Bashyam, the accused came to
him for the first time for treatment on 2.10.2003 and he examined him and prescribed five drugs and asked
him to take the same for a period of fifteen days and then to meet him and thereafter he examined the accused
on 15.10.2003; 19.11.2003; 4.12.2003; 31.12.2003; 14.1.2004; 5.2.2004; 20.2.2004; 4.3.2004; 30.3.2004;
14.4.2004; 14.5.2004 and on 29.6.2004. He has further stated that while the accused was under treatment, he
sent him to clinical test and obtained Ex.D2 Report and came to know that the accused was having paranoid
psychosis and he prescribed medicines. The first document in Ex.D1 (series) is the Prescription in letter pad of
Dr.Bashyam, dated 2.10.2003, mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu containing the various
dates referred above on which he examined Ramesh Babu and mentioning the names of the drugs prescribed
on those dates. Document Nos.2 to 4 in Ex.D1 (series) are Cash Bills dated 15.10.2003, 20.2.2004,
19.11.2003 of S.S.Chemists Medical Shop mentioning the names of the drugs sold to Ramesh Babu.
Documents 5 and 6 in Ex.D1 (series) are Bills dated 30.4.2004 and 30.6.2004 of Appollo Pharmacy
mentioning the names of the drugs sold to Ramesh Babu.

25. Ex.D2 is the Psychological Report dated 24.11.2003 issued by Mr.S.Balakrishnan, Clinical Psychologist,
residing at Plot No.13/17, Annamalai Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai. In Ex.D2 Report,
Mr.S.Balakrishnan has mentioned the test findings and in the summary he has stated that Ramesh Babu is
showing significant features of paranoid disorder and there are problems in adjustment in the area of
interpersonal regions and self concept. The author of Ex.D2 Report Mr.S.Balakrishnan has not been examined
by the accused. He is not in Government service. Ex.D2 Report came to be marked through DW.1
Dr.Bashyam. Though Dr.Bashyam, in his testimony, has stated that he sent Ramesh Babu to clinical test and
obtained Ex.D2 Report, there is no mention about the referral of the accused to Mr.S.Balakrishnan or receipt
of Ex.D2 Report in the first document in Ex.D1 (series) viz., the prescription letter containing running notes
of examination of Ramesh Babu on various dates. Dr.Bashyam is a private practitioner and the only medical
record pertaining to patient Ramesh Babu maintained by him is the first document in Ex.D1 (series) referred
above and if really Ramesh Babu was referred to test, it ought to have been mentioned in the above medical
record, but that is not mentioned. In short, nothing about the referral and receipt of report is mentioned in first
document in Ex.D1 (series). In such circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Ex.D2 Report is a
contemporaneous document which came into existence at the time when DW.1 Dr.Bashyam treated Ramesh
Babu and much reliance cannot be placed on it. In this context, it is relevant to point out that DW.1
Dr.Bashyam in his running notes of examination in the first document in Ex.D1 (series) has not recorded that
Ramesh Babu was suffering from paranoid psychosis. No such diagnosis was shown to have been made by
him during his treatment. Only during the oral testimony, he has come out with such a version, which is not
supported by any contemporaneous record maintained by him.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 10
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

26. DW.1 Dr.Bashyam has categorically stated that the accused did not come to him for treatment after
29.6.2004 and he did not know as to whether the accused took any treatment thereafter and according to him,
the accused though afflicted with mental illness, could wear proper dress, ride a vehicle and it does not affect
his Engineer career.

27. It is the further testimony of DW.3 Shanthi, mother of the accused, that after the treatment by
Dr.Bashyam, the accused went to Paris in France and employed there and thereafter he returned home and
refused to take the drugs by saying that he is 'Kalki Bhagavan' and she took him to General Hospital, Chennai
and showed him there. Ex.D7 is the O.P. Chit dated 29.6.2005 issued by Psychiatric Division of Government
General Hospital, Chennai mentioning the name of the patient as Ramesh Babu and a drug has been
prescribed for ten days in it. It is further stated by DW.3 Shanthi that she went to her daughter's house at
Vaniyambadi and stayed there and she was not in the house at Chennai when the occurrence took place and
she was telephonically informed about the arrest of the accused. The above is the evidence let in pertaining to
the period prior to occurrence and the last date on which the accused took treatment was 29.6.2005.

28. In so far as the period in and around the time of occurrence is concerned, there is no evidence adduced to
show that the accused was taking medical treatment and was under the care of doctor. In fact, the mother of
the accused DW.3 Shanthi in her cross-examination has admitted that she did not file any medical record to
show that the accused was taking continuous medical treatment from 29.6.2005 to 3.2.2007. It is her
testimony that she went to Vaniyambadi and stayed with her daughter and she was not in Chennai at the time
of occurrence. This shows that the accused was on his own living in the house at Chennai. In this context, the
contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that if really the mental condition of the son was not
alright, the mother would not have left him alone in the house and went and resided with the daughter at
Vaniyambadi, assumes significance.

29. The occurrence took place on 26.11.2006 at 4.45 pm in the evening in the premises of St.Thomas Mount
Church. As already seen, P.Ws.1 to 3 have witnessed the attack made by the accused with Chopper Knife on
Jacob. PW.1 Gilbert Mohan in his testimony has stated that at the time of occurrence the accused was standing
fury and took the oozing blood of Jacob and put 'Thilak' on his forehead with it. PW.2 Lilly Mary in her
testimony has stated that the accused asked Jacob as to whether the mountain could be given or not and Jacob
told him to go and meet the Father and immediately the accused attacked Jacob and took the oozing blood and
put 'Thilak' in his forehead. She has further stated that the accused did not appear to be insane and he came as
a rowdy with ugly look and spoke furiously. PW.3 Adaikalasamy in his testimony has deposed that the
accused appeared cruelly but does not appear to be in disturbed state of mind.

30. PW.5 Sugumar was present when the accused was enquired by the Investigation Officer and was also
witness for recovery and he has stated that the accused called himself as 'Kalki Avatar God' and he did not
appear to be a mentally disturbed person and he was found normal. The Investigation Officer PW.11 Arockiya
Raveendran has stated that during enquiry, the accused told him that he believed that he is 'Kalki Bhagavan'
and in the documents referred from his house, he had put his signature as 'Kalki Ramesh Babu'. Ex.P15 is the
Inquest Report prepared by the Investigation Officer, in which, it is mentioned that the accused asked Jacob as
to whether the mountain could be given to them or not and Jacob told him that he cannot answer and to go and
ask Father and immediately the accused took Chopper Knife from the bag and attacked Jacob.

31. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that during investigation the history of
insanity of the accused was revealed and still the Investigation Officer did not subject the accused to medical
examination and place the evidence before the Court and it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case
and the benefit has to be given to the accused. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that during investigation, the mother of the accused filed petition dated 4.1.2007 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Alandur and order dated 25.1.2007 was passed to subject the accused for examination and medical
examination of the accused was done at Government Mental Hospital, Chennai on various dates and
subsequently the mother of the accused filed another petition before this Court and Order dated 23.7.2007 was
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 11
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

passed directing psychiatric examination and the accused was admitted in the Mental Hospital and was treated
by DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan who issued Ex.D3 Observation Report and medical examination was factually done
and there is no infirmity in this regard. Though the Investigation Officer did not subject the accused to
medical examination, that was practically done pursuant to the orders of the Court at the initiative taken by the
mother of the accused and evidence is before the Court and hence there is no infirmity affecting the
prosecution case.

32. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is seen that the accused claimed himself to be 'Kalki Bhagavan' in
and around the period of occurrence. No evidence was let in to show that the mental illness of the accused
continued during that period and no medical record was produced. In this context, it is also relevant to note
that no petition under Section 329 Cr.P.C stating that the accused was of unsound mind and consequently
incapable of making his defence was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate or the Trial Court.

33. The period immediately after the occurrence is concerned, the evidence available is Ex.P19 O.P. Chit of
Government Mental Hospital, Chennai and the oral testimony of DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan coupled with Ex.D3
Observation Report issued by him. As already seen, on the petition filed by the mother of the accused viz.,
DW.3 Shanthi, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur directed the Mental Hospital to examine the accused.
Ex.P19 is the O.P. Chit of the hospital and as per the entries therein, Dr.R.Radhakrishnan had examined the
accused on 3.2.2007, 12.2.2007, 3.3.2007, 6.3.2007 and 10.3.2007 and psychological assessment has been
done and the accused was advised to come on 12.3.2007, but he was not brought for further observation.
Dr.R.Radhakrishnan has not been examined in the case. In the notings in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit, he has only
written that the patient was observed and presented before unit chief and psychological assessment has been
done and the current status is mentioned as observation, psychometry incomplete and the patient needs further
observation. No document relating to psychological assessment referred above is filed. The notings in Ex.P19
O.P. Chit does not reveal any specific mental illness of the patient and the status of examination remained
incomplete.

34. DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan is the Assistant Surgeon, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk and he has testified
that the accused Ramesh Babu was admitted in the Mental Hospital on 21.8.2007 as in-patient and physical
examination and psychiatric examination were done and he was observed from 21.8.2007 to 5.9.2007 on
several occasions. Ex.D3 is the Observation Report issued by them containing the result of the examination
and opinion. They are extracted below for better appreciation. "On Examination he is cooperative, he
maintains eye contact, he is aware of the surroundings. His behaviour, mood, perception, attention,
concentration, memory, general information, intelligence were found to be normal.

He answers to questions relevantly to begin with. He is having many abnormal false beliefs (Delusions). He
firmly believes he is "Baghwan Kalki". He also believes he is having the power of God Siva. He
believes a man is against his mission and preventing his actions. He believes his Ideas are taken out of his
brain through electrodes and seen in a computer. He believes clones are being made in the society. He firmly
believes he created the tsunami in the year 2004. He believes at times his mother is acting on behalf of
persons against him. His thinking is extensively abnormal. He denies having any psychiatric illness. He is not
in touch with reality. OPINION:

He is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a Major Mental Illness. He is presently treated with
antipsychotic medications. He requires continuous, long term antipsychotic medications, periodic follow up
and treatment by a Psychiatrist."

From the above, it is seen that the examination conducted was one of putting questions to the patient and the
answers given by Ramesh Babu have been recorded and mentioned as such in Ex.D3 Observation Report. Of
course, the opinion expressed is that Ramesh Babu is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, a major mental
illness. DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan has stated that the accused Ramesh Babu was first examined in Mental Hospital
on 3.2.2007 and he cannot tell as to what was his mental condition before that date and he cannot also
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 12
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

precisely state the period of mental illness prior to their examination.

35. The burden of proof rests on the accused to prove his insanity and it is no higher than which rests upon a
party to a civil proceeding. The crucial point for deciding whether the benefit under Section 84 IPC should be
given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place.

36. In so far as the evidence let in by the accused prior to the occurrence is concerned, there is no diagnosis
that the accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. Though DW.1 Dr.Bashyam in the testimony
before the Court has stated that he diagnosed the above mental illness during his treatment in the year
2003-2004 based on Ex.D2 Psychological Report, no such diagnosis was recorded by him in the
contemporaneous record, in his notes in Ex.D1 (series). Further, the author of Ex.D2 Psychological Report
Mr.S.Balakrishnan was not examined and it is already concluded that no reliance can be placed on the said
document.

37. There is no history of psychiatric illness in the family of the accused. With regard to the evidence adduced
subsequent to the commission of the offence is concerned, the accused was first examined in the Mental
Hospital, Chennai on 3.2.2007, more than two months after the occurrence and even then, no diagnosis was
made as found in Ex.P19 O.P. Chit. Only on 6.9.2007, DW.2 Dr.Malaiappan has expressed opinion that the
accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that diagnosis was made after a period of nine
months from the date of occurrence and it cannot be said to be proximate in time to the event.

38. There is no proof adduced by the accused regarding his state of mind at the time of commission of the
offence. As already seen, the accused after getting treatment, went to Paris in France and employed there for
sometime in the year 2005 and returned to India and did not take any treatment in the year 2006 and there is
no evidence to show that the ailment continued and the inference is he was in fit state of mind. Two days prior
to occurrence, he met PW.4 Mohideen and purchased covers for his Knives and went to the occurrence place
concealing the Chopper Knife in his leather bag and on meeting Jacob, he suddenly pulled it out and cut Jacob
with it and when Jacob ran away, the accused chased and caught hold of him and indiscriminately cut him
with the Chopper Knife in day-light in the presence of people and ran away with the weapon from the
occurrence place and was subsequently arrested. Thus there was deliberation and preparation for the act and it
was done in a manner which showed desire to concealment and the accused's consciousness of guilt by
running away from the place to avoid apprehension; all these facts are material considerations to be borne in
mind.

39. The decision in BHOSALE'S CASE (referred above) relied on by Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the accused therein
had a family history of psychiatric illness and he was diagnosed as suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia
prior to the occurrence and he was under regular medical treatment for the mental illness and those
circumstances are absent in the present case.

40. In the same way, the contention made relying on the decision in THAKKAR'S CASE (cited supra) that
even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the
offence, the evidence let in, if raises a reasonable doubt as regards one or more of the ingredients of the
offence, the accused is entitled for acquittal, is also devoid of merit since the evidence let in, in the present
case, does not give room for doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the mental ailment of the accused.

41. The other decision in RATAN LAL'S CASE (referred to supra), relied on by the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant, is mainly based on factual matrix and no ratio was laid down.

42. It is true that there is no motive for the occurrence, but it cannot, in the absence of proof of legal insanity,
bring the present case within the ambit of Section 84 IPC. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally
impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 13
 Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu vs State, Represented By on 8 September, 2009

Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion affords no protection under Section 84 IPC. The accused had
abnormal behaviour and was under treatment till the beginning of the year 2005 and thereafter remained
mentally fit. Actuated by religious fanaticism , he had ventured to attack the victim to death. Considering the
law laid down by the Supreme Court set out above, in the background of facts, the present case is not one
where the protection under Section 84 IPC can be applied. However, as and when the Jail Authorities feel the
appellant needs treatment, he should be immediately sent for treatment at Government Mental Hospital,
Chennai.

43. There are no merits in the Appeal and the same is dismissed.

vks

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I)

Chengalpattu.

2. -do- through the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.

3. The Inspector of Police, B1, St.Thomas Mount Police Station,

Chennai-600 016.

4. The Superintendent of Prisons,

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

5. The Director General of Police,

Mylapore, Chennai-600 044.

6. The District Collector,

Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.

7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai-600 104.

8. The Section Officer, Criminal Side Section, High Court,

Madras 600 104

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/299574/ 14