Riyas v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 9TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.A NO. 364 OF 2017 ``` ``` CRIME NO.725/2013 OF Kalpakanchery Police Station, ``` ## **`Malappuram`** ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CP 30/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ``` ``` OF FIRST CLASS-I ,TIRUR SC 613/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT ``` ``` - II, MANJERI ``` ## **`APPELLANT/ACCUSED:`** ``` RIYAS AGED 34 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED BAVA, ARIMA PARAMBIL HOUSE,PONMUNDAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 2 :- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------Crl. Appeal No.364 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of January, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) by the accused in S.C.No.613 of 2014 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, who stands convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is preferred challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him in the said case. 2. The deceased in the case is none other than the father of the accused. The occurrence which is the subject matter of the case took place in the early hours of 12.11.2013. The accused has four siblings, and he was residing at the time of occurrence, in the family house along with his parents and three of his siblings, one sister named Jaseela and brothers Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 3 :- namely, Rashid and Harris. At about 2 a.m. on the date of occurrence, Rashid, the brother of the accused informed a close relative of the deceased that the accused stabbed the deceased to death and the said relative, having found the body of the deceased lying with injuries in a pool of blood in the dining hall of his residence, informed the matter to the police and a case was registered by the Kalpakanchery Police on the basis of the said information as Crime No.725 of 2013. The case was investigated by the then Circle Inspector of Police, Valancheri and the final report was filed alleging commission of the offence by the accused punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in the final report is that on account of the enmity the accused had against his father for not treating him also as one of the brokers in connection with the transaction in terms of which the deceased sold a property held by Jaseela, the accused stabbed his father to death at about 2 a.m. on 12.11.2013 when the latter unplugged the television while the former was watching the same. 4. As the accused denied the charge framed and read over to him by the Court of Session when committed for Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 4 :- trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PWs 1 to 15 and proved through them Exts.P1 to P15 series documents. MOs 1 and 2 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. As the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. The main defence of the accused was that, at the time of the occurrence, he was suffering from unsoundness of mind and that he was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. The accused, in the circumstances, examined four witnesses on his side as DWs 1 to 4 and proved through them Exts.D1 to D6 documents to establish his defence. The Court of Session did not accept the defence set out by the accused. On the other hand, on an appraisal of the materials on record, the Court of Session found the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted him. The sentence imposed on the accused is imprisonment for life together with fine. The accused is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Session and hence, this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The point that arises for consideration is Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 5 :- whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the Court of Session against the accused are sustainable in law. 7. The learned counsel for the accused did not seriously challenge the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the death of the victim is a homicide or that it is the accused who caused the death of the victim. On the other hand, the learned counsel earnestly challenged the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. To bring home the said point, the learned counsel argued that even though the motive was attributed to the accused to cause the death of his father, the same has not been established by the prosecution in the case. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that immediately after the arrest of the accused, the investigating officer himself made arrangements for the treatment of the accused in a Mental Hospital. According to the learned counsel, in the circumstances, it was obligatory for the investigating officer to conduct necessary investigation as to the state of mind of the accused at the time of the occurrence, and inasmuch as such an investigation was not conducted, the accused is entitled to be acquitted on that sole ground. The Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 6 :- learned counsel has also brought to our attention the fact that the mother and sister of the accused have admitted in their evidence that the accused was suffering from mental ailments right from his childhood. The fact has been reinforced by the evidence tendered by DW4, the doctor who treated the accused for mental ailments prior to the occurrence. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as it is established that the accused was suffering from mental ailments prior to and after the occurrence, the Court of Session ought to have extended the benefit of Section 84 IPC to the accused. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa** 2023 KHC OnLine 6100 and **Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim,** 2023 KHC 6844, and the decision of this Court in **Lalitha @ Latha v. State of Kerala** 2021 KHC 5106, in support of his contention that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in order to claim the benefit of Section 84 IPC, it was obligatory for the accused to establish that by reason of Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 7 :- his unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him at the time of occurrence and that there was absolutely no material on record to enable the court to infer the said fact. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously dispute the fact that the accused is a person who was under treatment for mental ailments prior to and after the occurrence, the learned Public Prosecutor was firm in his stand that the same is insufficient to extend to the accused the benefit of Section 84 IPC. 9. PW1 is a close relative of the deceased, on whose information the crime was registered. PW1 did not see the occurrence. The evidence of PW1 was only that when he came to the house of the deceased on receiving information from Rashid, the brother of the accused, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood in the dining hall of his house with injuries on his body. Even though PW1 deposed in his evidence that the accused caused the death of his father on account of his enmity towards him for having sold a property held by Jaseela, the sister of the accused, it has come out from the evidence of PW15, the investigating officer that such a statement was not given by PW1 to the police. Similarly, even Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 8 :- though PW1 deposed that there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased a few days prior to the date of occurrence at a place called Nursurypadi angadi in connection with the property held by Jaseela, PW15 deposed that such a statement also was not given by PW1 to the police. 10. PW2 is the wife of the deceased and the mother of the accused. PW2 deposed that at about 1.30 a.m. on 12.11.2013, there was rain and lightening, and the deceased who was sleeping with her then woke up and went to the dining hall to unplug the cable of the television kept in the dining hall and after sometime, she heard a noise from the dining hall and when she rushed to there on hearing the noise, she saw her husband warding off the accused. It was also deposed by PW2 that she then found blood oozing out from the body of the deceased and him falling down. It was also deposed by PW2 that the accused then went into the room of the deceased, took the key of the car kept therein and drove away. PW2 also deposed that the accused maintained hatred against the deceased in connection with the transaction by which the deceased caused the sale of the property held by Jaseela and that though the deceased agreed to inform the said Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 9 :- transaction to the accused, the same had not been informed. It was also deposed by PW2 that the occurrence took place on the day immediately following the date of sale of the property. However, as in the case of PW1, PW15 stated in his evidence that PW2 also did not state before the police that the deceased had agreed to inform the date of sale of the property of Jaseela to the accused or that the deceased failed to do so or that it is on the day following the date of sale, the occurrence took place. 11. The witness who was examined as PW3 was none other than Jaseela. PW3 deposed that she along with her son and younger brother were sleeping in one room on the date of occurrence and when they rushed to the dining hall on hearing the noise from there, she saw the deceased warding off the accused. PW3 also deposed that when she attempted to prevent the accused, he pushed her away. The rest of the evidence of PW3 was on similar lines of the evidence tendered by her mother, PW2. PW3 also deposed that the accused then took the key of the car from the room of his father and drove away. Unlike PW2, what was spoken to by PW3 as regards the motive of the accused was that the deceased had agreed to Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 10 :- give a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused out of the sale proceeds of the property held by her and that there was an altercation in connection with the said transaction between the deceased and the accused at Nursurypadi angadi. As in the case of PWs 1 and 2, PW15 has stated in his evidence that, PW3 did not inform the police that the deceased had agreed to give a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused out of the sale proceeds of the property held by PW3. 12. The witness who was examined as PW4 was Rashid. The evidence of PW4 was on the similar lines of the evidence tendered by PWs 2 and 3. Unlike PWs 2 and 3, PW4 deposed that he saw the accused stabbing the shoulder and left rib portion of the deceased. In addition, it was deposed by PW4 that the deceased had in fact taken the accused to the Gulf country where he was working and that the accused was sent back after about a year, as he created some problem there. PW4 also deposed that there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased at Nursurypadi angadi in connection with the sale of the property of PW3. In crossexamination, PW4 however, admitted that he did not inform the police that he saw the accused stabbing the deceased. Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 11 :- 13. PW6 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. The ante-mortem injuries noted by PW6 on the body of the deceased at the time of autopsy are the following: “1. Incised penetrating wound 8x2x5cm horizontally placed on the right side of chest 26cm below armpit. The front end was square cut and the other (back/outer) end was sharp cut. Travelled downwards and forward, in the subcutaneous plane for 5cm. 2. Incised penetrating wound 3x0.2cm vertically placed on the right half of front of abdomen, upper sharp cut end 3cm to the right of umbilicus, lower end was square cut. Penetrated in to abdominal cavity (3cm) in the internal abdominal wall and cut the intestine (partial), 350cm from duodino jejunal junction. 3. “[“ shaped incised wound 2.7x1cm, obliquely placed, on the left upper part of front chest wall 9cm to the left of midline and 3.5cm above nipple. Tailing for 10.5cm (as linear mark) upwards to left shoulder top. 4. Incised penetrating wound 4.5x1cm, transversely placed on left side of chest 12cm below left armpit The back end was square cut and on line with posterior armpit fold. Front end was sharp cut and showed tailing of 2cm forwards. This injury made a cut 3.5x1cm on the outer border of left lung involving posterior aspect of lower lobe. 5. Incised wound 3x0.8cm transversely placed, 6cm above the injury no.4 (inside armpit). The front end was square cut, other end sharp cut. 6. Superficial incised wound 2x0.2x0. 1cm transversely placed 4cm in front of injury No.5 (5 and 6 were inside the armpit). 7. Incised penetrating wound, 3x0.2cm obliquely on the left costal border of chest 1 to 7cm on front of chest, abdomen, inner lower end square cut, other end sharp cut 14cm to the left of midline and 8cm above top of hip bone. Had penetrated in to the abdominal Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 12 :- cavity just below the costal margin and cut the small intestine completely, 170cm from duodino jejunal junction. 8. Paired stabs two incised penetrating wounds 3x0.3cm each 0.5cm apart, vertically placed on left upper part of back of chest 9.5cm to the left of midline and 9.5cm below top of shoulder. Upper ends were square cut, lower end, were sharp cut. Had entered chest through 4th inter costal space made two corresponding cuts in the back of lower lobe of left lung 2.5cm each and 1cm deep each. 9. Incised wound 3x0.3cm, vertical, on back of chest 1cm to the left of midline 7cm below C7 spine lower end square cut and with 7.5cm a tailing upwards. 10. Incised penetrating wound 3x0.2cm, obliquely placed on back of chest, 14cm below C7 spine. Upper inner end square cut in the midline. Lower end sharp cut. 11. Incised penetrating wound 2.5x0.2cm, vertical on back of chest 1cm to the right of midline and 18cm below C7 spine. 12. Incised wound 3x0.2cm on the left lower half of back of chest. Lower left end square cut 8cm to the left of midline and 25cm below top of shoulder. 13. Incised wound, 7.5x1.5cm, vertically placed on front of right upper arm, 5.5cm below top of shoulder. Upper end square cut, lower end sharp cut 14. 'T' shaped incised wound, horizontal component 4.5x2cm and vertical component 3x2cm with tailing 5.5cm downwards, on front of lower half of right upper arm. Inner end of horizontal component was square cut impression; rocking after stab. 15. Incised wound 3x0.5cm, vertical, on back of left upper arm 2cm below top of shoulder. Upper end square cut, lower end sharp cut with tailing 4cm on back of upper arm 25cm below the main wound and another superficial injury 0.5x0.5cm on back of left elbow. 16. Incised wound 3x2x0.3cm on outer aspect of left wrist.” PW6 deposed that the multiple stab injuries sustained by the Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 13 :- deceased resulting in blood loss, and the vital organ injury sustained by the deceased on his lung were the cause of his death. PW6 also deposed that among the injuries, injury Nos. 4 and 8 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW6 also deposed that the said injuries could be caused using MO2 knife. 14. PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kalpakancheri Police Station deposed that it was he who recorded the statement given by PW1, on the basis of which the case was registered. PW9 also deposed that the accused came to the police station in a car bearing registration No. KL10-AJ-8724 and stated that it was he who caused the death of the victim and in the light of the said statement the accused and the car in which he came to the police station were taken into custody. 15. PW10 is the person who purchased the property from PW3 on the day prior to the date of occurrence. PW10 affirmed the said fact in his evidence. PW11 is a person who runs rent-a-car business and it was deposed by PW11 that the car bearing registration No.KL10-AJ-8724 was one given by him on rent to a relative of the deceased and the deceased Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 14 :- obtained the said car from him. PW13 was a broker who transacted the sale of the property held by PW3. PW13 deposed that there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased in connection with the sale of the said property at Nursurypadi angadi. In addition, PW13 deposed that the accused used to drive all types of vehicles and that he was driving an auto rickshaw during the period of the occurrence. In cross-examination, PW13 admitted that the first marriage of the accused failed as he was suffering from unsoundness of mind. The suggestion made to PW13 by the learned counsel for the accused at the time of crossexamination was that the accused was the driver of PW13 and the accused left his service after a quarrel with him, as the accused was not paid wages for the service rendered. 16. PW15 deposed that during interrogation, the accused informed him that the accused kept a knife inside a car in which he came to the police station and took out MO2 knife from the front door pad of the said car and handed over the same to the investigating officer. Ext.P9 is the mahazar prepared in this regard. 17. As indicated, even though PW4 deposed that Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 15 :- he saw the accused stabbing the deceased, such a statement was not made by PW4 to the police in his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. The said part of the evidence tendered by PW4, in the circumstances, is liable to be eschewed. In other words, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence, saw the accused stabbing the deceased. But, merely for the reason that the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not see the accused stabbing the deceased, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not established the said fact. If the evidence tendered by the said witnesses is appreciated in the light of the remaining evidence in the case, especially the evidence tendered by PW6, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police and PW15, the investigating officer, we endorse the finding rendered by the Court of Session that it was the accused who caused the death of the victim, and we, therefore, affirm the same. 18. As regards the motive attributed to the accused, the evidence tendered by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are not consistent. Even though it is established that the relationship between the accused and the Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 16 :- deceased was not cordial, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is on account of the hatred the accused maintained against the deceased for not treating him also as one of the brokers for the sale of the property of PW3, that the accused caused the death of his father. But merely for the reason that the motive for the crime is not proved, it cannot be said that the accused has not committed the same, since sufficient and more evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that it is the accused who caused the death of the victim. 19. Let us now deal with the question whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. We have dealt with the principles to be kept in mind while deciding the question relating to the application of Section 84 IPC elaborately in **Aji Devassy v. State of Kerala** , 2023 KHC Online 9420. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment read thus: “9. Let us now deal with the question whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Section 84 IPC provides that 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 84 embodies the fundamental principle that an act does not Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 17 :- constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention, for in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the intent and act must concur and in the case of insane persons, culpability cannot be fastened, as such insane persons do not have free will. There is no definition for 'unsoundness of mind' in the Indian Penal Code. The term 'insanity' also has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. 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. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction needs to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. Medical insanity refers to all kinds of mental disorders that affect the working of the mind of a person, whereas legal insanity refers to the incapability of a person to know the nature of the act which he performs or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. What is provided for under Section 84 IPC is legal insanity and not medical insanity. The crucial point of time for deciding the legal insanity is the material time when the offence took place. Since the intent and act must concur to constitute an offence under Section 84 IPC, in every case where the evidence collected would create a doubt as to whether the accused was suffering from any mental ailments, it is incumbent on the investigating officer to conduct a serious investigation as to whether the accused was suffering from any mental ailments at the time of commission of the offence. 10. If the mental ailment is concealed in the final report, the accused is certainly entitled to prove the existence of circumstances to bring the case within the scope Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 18 :- of Section 84. Of course, the question whether the accused has discharged the said burden is to be considered on the principle of 'preponderance of probabilities' and not on the principle 'proof beyond doubt'. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. In **Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat** , 1964 SCC OnLine SC 20, the Apex Court has explained the aspect of the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity in the following words: “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 Section 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.” Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 19 :- 11. It is now judicially settled that the mere fact that no motive has been proved for the accused to commit the murder or the fact that he has not made any attempt to run away, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence [See **Sheralli Wali Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra** , (1973) 4 SCC 79]. 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 the offence or immediately after the commission of the same. At the same time, behaviour, antecedent, attendant, and subsequent conduct may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event. 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 to soundly judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect 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. In dealing with cases involving a defence of insanity, a distinction must be made between cases in which insanity is more or less proved and the question is only as to the degree of irresponsibility, and cases in which insanity is sought to be proved in respect of a person, who for all intents and purposes, appears sane. In all cases where previous insanity is proved or admitted, the questions whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in a manner which showed a desire to concealment; whether after the crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detection and whether after Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 20 :- his arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements, would be relevant [See **Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P.** , (2008) 16 SCC 109].” The principles aforesaid are the principles referred to and reiterated in the three decisions cited by the learned counsel for the accused. 20. Having thus reminded ourselves of the law on the point, let us now consider the evidence on record to see whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Before proceeding to consider the said aspect, it is necessary to refer to the evidence tendered by the witnesses examined on the side of the accused as DW2 and DW4 and the documents proved by the accused through them. DW2 was the Superintendent of the Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. DW2 has made available Ext.D2 series case sheets maintained in the said hospital pertaining to the treatment rendered to the accused from 19.11.2013 to 15.05.2015. DW4 was a Psychiatrist attached to MES Hospital, Perinthalmanna and DW4 proved Ext.D4 series prescriptions issued to the accused on 25.01.2012, 12.07.2013 and 15.10.2013 respectively. DW4 also deposed that he examined the accused on 30.10.2013 and advised him for review after two weeks. Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 21 :- DW4 further deposed that 'sizodon', a tablet usually administered to patients suffering from 'schizophrenia' was prescribed to the accused. 21. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused, PW2, the mother of the accused during crossexamination admitted that the accused was suffering from mental ailments from the age of 12 and that the accused was treated for the same at various hospitals. PW2 also deposed that even at the time when the occurrence took place, the accused was taking medicines for mental ailments. The said evidence let in by PW2 was endorsed by PW3, the sister of the accused also. The evidence tendered by PWs 2 and 3, if appreciated in the background of the evidence tendered by DW4, it can certainly be inferred that the accused used to consume medicines, usually given for psychotic ailments. Similarly, the evidence tendered by DW2, and Ext.D2 series case sheets indicate beyond doubt that the accused was admitted at the Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode for treatment immediately after the occurrence on 19.11.2013 and was undergoing inpatient treatment in the hospital till 11.02.2014. It is also seen from Ext.D2 series case sheets that the accused Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 22 :- was re-admitted in the hospital thereafter on two more occasions and he was continuing treatment till 15.05.2015. 22. The crucial question is whether the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act performed by him or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to the law. As far as cases in which previous insanity is either proved or admitted, the question aforesaid has to be resolved by appreciating the conduct of the accused while committing the offence or immediately after the commission of the offence. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent conduct of the accused would also be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event. As noticed, in the case on hand, motive has not been satisfactorily established. But merely for the said reason, it cannot be said that there was no motive at all. As such, the fact that motive was not established would not indicate that the accused was insane at the time of the occurrence or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. Although it is established that the accused was under treatment for mental ailments right from the age of 12, it has come out that the accused was Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 23 :- leading a normal life like any other, except to the extent of showing some aggressive behaviour. It has come out in evidence that the accused used to drive all kinds of vehicles and he was working as a driver of PW13 for sometime. The accused had been to a gulf country also for sometime and worked there. Although the first marriage of the accused was unsuccessful, the accused married for the second time. As regards the conduct and behaviour of the accused as on the date of occurrence, it has come out that when the mother of the accused came back to the house after a party, the accused was watching television and immediately after the occurrence, the accused went inside the bedroom of the deceased, took the key of the car of the deceased kept therein and drove away. PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the crime deposed that the accused came to the police station in the said car and stated that the accused caused the death of his father. Ext.D5 remand report also reveals the fact that the accused came to the police station voluntarily. The aforesaid subsequent conduct of the accused indicates that he was indeed capable of knowing the nature of his act; otherwise, there was no reason for him to go to the police station after the occurrence. As Crl.Appeal No.364 of 2017 -: 24 :- rightly observed by the Court of Session, if the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him, he would not have left the house immediately with the weapon used by him to cause the death of his own father. Similarly, the accused would not have gone to the police station voluntarily to inform the police about the occurrence. Needless to say, the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC is perfectly in order. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** **JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.** Mn