Kerala High Court: The Accused’s Failure To Leave The Crime Site Is Insufficient Evidence Of Insanity

Last Updated on November 12, 2024 by Arti Kumari

Recently, the Kerala High Court confirmed a man’s conviction and life sentence for killing his three-year-old son .

Convict Raju MA, also known as Undachi Raju, entered an insanity plea, but Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Jobin Sebastian rejected it, ruling that Raju’s actions of staying at the crime scene without making an attempt to flee were insufficient justification.

Therefore, the conduct of the accused of remaining at the crime scene without attempting to flee, in itself, is insufficient to conclude that he suffered from mental impairment, especially since the defence has failed to present any positive evidence to demonstrate that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of alleged offence the Court stated..

Witnesses claim that on July 21, 2015, Raju brought his kids to a nearby home in the Panathadi Grama Panchayat region, where he fatally beat his son with a coconut scraper before strangling him.

Raju was accused of killing the child during a family argument because he was angry with his wife.

After conducting an inquiry, the police filed a report with the Hosdurg-based Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, which then forwarded the case to the Kasaragod Sessions Court.

Raju was found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the sessions court and given a life sentence and a ₹50,000 fine.

Raju then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Kerala High Court.

Raju’s attorney contended in his appeal that since he was mentally ill at the time of the occurrence, his case would fall under Section 84 of the IPC, which shields mentally ill people from criminal prosecution.

Raju’s continuous presence at the crime scene without making any attempt to escape, the defense further said, demonstrated that he lacked the mental capacity to anticipate the repercussions of his acts.

Nonetheless, the prosecution contended that Raju had carried out the heinous deed with awareness and purpose.

The prosecution claimed that the evidence demonstrated that Raju had cruelly killed his kid by dragging him around the home, striking him with a coconut scraper, and strangling him with a dhoti.

The prosecution’s assertion that Raju was completely aware of his activities was bolstered by these acts.

The Court’s review of the material revealed no solid evidence that Raju was legally insane at the time of the offense.

It cited the ruling in Bapu @ Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan by the Supreme Court, which made a distinction between medical and legal insanity and emphasized that only the former could release a person from criminal responsibility.

The Court further cited Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act (Burden of demonstrating that case of accused comes under exceptions) to hold that the defense had the burden of establishing legal insanity.

It did point out, nevertheless, that the defense had not shown enough proof to demonstrate that the accused was unable to comprehend the nature of his activities, which rendered Section 84 of the IPC inapplicable.

The Court further ruled that because the case was based on direct eyewitness testimony rather than circumstantial evidence, the accused could not claim a lack of motive.

The evidence of motive is less important because the witness statements made it abundantly evident how the accused killed the young boy.

It said that the prosecution’s case was not undermined by the accused’s wife’s non-examination because there was enough eyewitness testimony to support the accusations.

Regarding Raju’s failure to leave the crime scene, the Court held that people may respond differently to criminal activity and that failing to make an effort to leave the scene does not necessarily indicate a lack of reason.

The Court went on to say, “There is no strict or unbending rule that every accused person will try to flee after committing a crime.”

As a result, it maintained the verdict and sentence and denied Raju’s appeal.

Case Title- Raju M.A. @ Undachi Raju V. State of Kerala

Citation No: Crl.A No. 17 Of 2023