Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 1563 OF 2019 CRIME NO.927/2016 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 13/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM SC 794/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN), ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/ACCUSED: AJI DEVASSY, AGED 43 YEARS S/O DEVASSY, PONNASSERY HOUSE, CHERUKARAYATH LANE, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM, (NOW UNDERGOING IMPRISONMENT, C.NO. (NOT KNOWN), CENTRAL PRISON, VIYOOR, PIN - 680 010. BY ADV MANJU ANTONEY RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION/STATE: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION (CRIME NO. 927/2016, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION), THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU O.V. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2023, THE COURT ON 22.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -: 2 :- P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No.1563 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2023
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.794 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, has been preferred challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him in the said case.
2. A boy aged 10 years was killed brutally in an
occurrence that took place on the street near his house while he was returning home from the nearby shop. The accused is a person residing in the neighbourhood of the residence of the deceased. One Ajithkumar was occupying a building owned by the father of the deceased on a rental arrangement. There was a physical altercation between the accused and Ajithkumar on a previous occasion. The case of the prosecution is that on
-: 3 :-
account of the enmity of the accused towards Ajithkumar, the accused requested the father of the deceased to evict Ajithkumar from his house and since the father of the deceased did not pay heed to the said request of the accused, on 26.04.2016, at about 6.45 a.m., the accused stabbed multiple times on different parts of the body of the boy and he succumbed to the injuries within a short while on reaching the hospital.
3. A case was registered in connection with the
occurrence by Ernakulam Central Police at 8.30 a.m. on 26.04.2016 itself as Crime No.927 of 2016 on the basis of the information furnished by one Anie Joesph, an eye witness to the occurrence and the case was investigated by PW25, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central Police Station. After investigation, the final report was filed on the aforesaid lines against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. As the accused denied the charge framed and read over to him by the Court of Session when committed for trial, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses as PWs 1 to 26 -: 4 :-
and proved through them Exts.P1 to P18 documents. MOs 1 to 6 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 and adduce evidence in support thereof. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the accused as DWs 1 and 2 and a document was marked as Ext.D1. The Court of Session, thereupon, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found the appellant guilty of the offence, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine. The accused is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Session.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction entered, and sentence passed against the accused by the trial court is sustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the accused did not
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 deceased. The serious challenge -: 5 :-
raised by the learned counsel was against the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. It was asserted by the learned counsel that the accused was a person suffering from legal insanity at the time of commission of the offence and he was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. To bring home the said point, the learned counsel argued that the motive alleged by the prosecution for the accused to commit the crime is too trivial a motive to commit a crime of the instant nature. The learned counsel has also brought to our notice the conduct of the accused after the occurrence. It was pointed out that the accused never attempted to escape from the scene and he was casually walking through the same street after the occurrence, as if nothing had happened. It was argued by the learned counsel based on the evidence tendered by DWs 1 and 2 and the treatment records of the accused maintained at the Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur that the accused is a person suffering from serious mental ailments and he was under treatment for mental ailments
before and after the occurrence and the said evidence is sufficient for the court to extend to the accused the benefit of -: 6 :-
Section 84 IPC. 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 unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him at the time of occurrence and there is 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 in a Mental Health Centre before the occurrence, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence let in by the prosecution would indicate that the accused is a person who has been under the influence of intoxicating substances and that the alleged act might be one committed by him under
such influence. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that if at all the accused was suffering from any mental ailments, the same might be due to substance abuse and if that be the case, the accused cannot claim the benefit of Section 84 IPC.
8. PW1 and PW4 are persons residing in the neighbourhood of the residence of the deceased and they have -: 7 :- been examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. PW1 and PW4 are ocular witnesses. Their evidence as regards
the occurrence was consistent, and in tune with the prosecution allegation. After the occurrence, going by the version of PW1, the accused was moving gently through the street, as if nothing had happened. PW9 is the person who is stated to have caught the accused near his house as was required by him to do so by PW4, who witnessed the occurrence. PW10 is also an ocular witness to the occurrence. PW12 is the mother of the deceased. PW12 deposed that on hearing the cries of PW1 and others, when she rushed to the scene, she saw the accused stabbing on the neck of the boy and when she required the accused to leave the boy, he left the scene keeping the knife in the body of the boy itself. PW12 deposed that it is she who removed the knife from the neck of the boy. No contradictions or significant omissions have been brought out to discredit the evidence tendered by the said
witnesses. We have meticulously perused the evidence tendered by the aforesaid witnesses and found that the same would establish beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence in the case. The Court of Session, in the circumstances, was certainly -: 8 :- justified in coming to the conclusion that it was the accused who caused the death of the victim.
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
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 -: 9 :-
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 of Section -: 10 :-
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 -: 11 :-
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.”
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
-: 12 :-
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 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].
12. 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. As noted, the occurrence took place on 26.04.2016. DW1 -: 13 :- was working as Senior Consultant Psychiatrist at the
Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur after the occurrence. DW1 deposed that on 22.05.2016, the accused was brought to the Mental Health Centre from jail and was admitted for treatment in the Centre based on an order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam; that the accused was then diagnosed as suffering from psychosis; that he had delusions of persecution and had auditory hallucination at that time and was on medication for the same. DW1 also deposed that psychosis affects the thinking process of a patient characterised by presence of delusions. DW1 deposed that though the condition of the accused had improved on treatment and he was discharged on 02.07.2017, the accused was brought in the out patient department of the Centre on several occasions for review and the last review was on 11.12.2018. DW1 also deposed based on the recitals in Ext.D1 case sheet maintained at the Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur in respect of the accused that he was treated on 28.12.2015 also in the Centre; that one Dr.Lakshmi was the doctor who evaluated him on 28.12.2015; that Dr.Lakshmi recorded in the case sheet that the accused was on a
-: 14 :-
psychiatric medication for the last ten years and that he was discharged on 04.02.2016. DW1 also deposed that it is recorded in Ext.D1 that the accused has been indulging in alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, drugs etc. based on the information furnished by the father of the accused. In cross-examination, DW1 stated that the accused was brought for treatment to the Mental Health Centre for the first time on 28.12.2015 and the complaints noted at that time were increased anger, increased talk, aggressive behaviour and decreased sleep, the duration of which mentioned by the father of the accused is two years prior to the evaluation. It was also stated by DW1 during cross- examination that Dr.Lakshmi who evaluated the accused on 29.12.2015 also observed that the mood of the accused was euphoric. It was also stated by DW1 during cross-examination that at the relevant time, the accused was not suffering from auditory hallucination or delusions. It was clarified by DW1 during cross-examination that psychosis is a major mental illness. DW1 stated that on 05.02.2016, the accused was found fit after being assessed by a Medical Board and it is on that basis, he was discharged from the Mental Health Centre. DW2 is the doctor attached to the Government Mental Health
-: 15 :- Centre, Thrissur who made available Ext.D1 treatment records of the accused maintained at the said centre.
13. We have perused meticulously the various
entries in Ext.D1 treatment records maintained at the Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur and the entries therein corroborate the evidence tendered by DW1. The accused was admitted in the Centre for treatment for the first time prior to the occurrence on 28.12.2015 and he was discharged on 05.02.2016. As deposed by DW1, it is recorded in Ext.D1 against the entry 'Past history of mental illness' that the accused was on psychiatric medication for the last ten years. Similarly, it is also recorded by the doctor in Ext.D1 on 29.12.2015 that the mood of the accused was euphoric. Euphoria is a state of intense excitement and happiness. It is seen from Ext.D1 that the diagnosis of the accused then was he is either suffering from Bipolar disorder or psychosis. It is seen that the accused was evaluated by a Medical Board before his discharge and it is on being satisfied that he was not showing any psychotic symptoms that he was discharged on 05.02.2016. It is almost 2½ months after the discharge that the occurrence took place. But as seen from the evidence
-: 16 :- tendered by DW1 that immediately after the occurrence, the accused was admitted for treatment again at the Centre and this time, he had delusions of persecution and auditory
hallucination. This time, his ailment was diagnosed as psychosis and he was on medication continuously till 2018 and even on the last review, medications were prescribed to him. There is no material on record to infer as to the date up to which the lucid interval continued. As already noticed, a lucid interval of an insane person is only a restoration of faculties of the mind to enable him to judge his act and does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. The fact that psychosis is a serious mental ailment has been deposed by DW1. Similarly, the fact that psychosis affects the thinking process of a patient characterised by the presence of delusions, has also been deposed by DW1.
14. As already noticed, the settled position is that
while 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 -: 17 :-
proved in respect of a person, who for all intents and purposes, appears sane. In the case on hand, since it is established that the accused is a person suffering from mental ailments prior to the occurrence and was under treatment for the same at the Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur, we can certainly take note of the behaviour of the accused, antecedent, attendant and subsequent conduct of the accused as also the
facts namely 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 accused showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detection and whether after his arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements.
15. As noted, the occurrence took place on a
public street in broad day light. The evidence tendered by PW19, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination as regards the ante-mortem injuries noted on the body of the victim would give an indication as to the nature of injuries inflicted by the accused on the victim boy. The ante-mortem injuries deposed to have been noted by PW19 are the following:
-: 18 :-
“1. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm horizontally placed on the right side of root of neck, the outer end was placed 6cm below the angle of jaw and the inner end was placed 4cm away from midline. On dissection of neck wound was severing the external jugular vein cutting through the muscles and terminated cutting the Cs vertebra.
2. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm obliquely placed on the right
side of head, 4cm above and 3cm behind the right ear. The wound was cranial cavity deep producing a fracture of 3cm x 0.5cm on the skull. Brain showed subarachnoid hemorrhage on the left parieto- occipital area.
3. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm horizontally placed 5cm behind the ear. Underneath skull showed a linear fracture 2cm long communicating with skull cavity.
4. Incised wound 3cm x 1cm horizontally placed at the inner aspect of upper lip. Inner end was at midline.
5. Lacerated 0.5cm long on the left cheek left below the eye.
6. Incised wound 2.5cm long obliquely placed, the upper inner end was placed 10cm outer to right shoulder blade.
7. Incised wound 0.5cm long vertically 2.5cm outer to injury No.6 on the back aspect of upper arm.
8. Horizontally placed superficial incised wound 0.5cm long with tailing 0.5cm from the outer end downwards and outerwards placed 0.5cm outer to injury no.7.
9. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm vertically placed on the outer aspect of middle1/3 rd of upper arm 0.5cm away to injury no. 8.
10. Superficial incised wound 0.5cm long outer to injury no. 9.
11. Superficial incised wound 2cm long on the outer aspect of middle 1/3 rd of upper arm, 10cm below tip of shoulder. -: 19 :-
12. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm long vertically placed on the front aspect of upper 1/3rd of upper arm. The upper end was placed 5cm below tip of shoulder.
13. Incised wound 3cm long horizontally placed, the inner end was placed on the occiput.
14. Incised wound 4cm long horizontally placed, the inner end was placed 0.5cm away from midline and 2cm below injury no. 13.
15. Incised wound 3cm long horizontally placed on the back aspect of neck, the inner end was placed 3cm away from midline.
16. Incised wound 2cm long along the midline on the nape of neck.
17. Incised wound 2cm long on the inner aspect of right forearm 5cm above the wrist.
18. Superficial incised wound 2cm long on the back aspect of left palm 3cm above the ring finger.”
As evident from the extracted ante-mortem injuries, among the same, 13 are incised injuries and all of them are inflicted around the head and neck of the victim boy. Even though there cannot be any inference from the manner in which the injuries were inflicted by the accused on the victim as also from the nature of injuries as to whether the injuries were inflicted by reason of unsoundness of mind of the accused, we are of the view that the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence, and
-: 20 :- the manner in which the injuries were inflicted by the accused on the victim as also the nature of injuries, can certainly be taken note of as the attendant conduct of the accused along with other facts in considering the question as to whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.
16. Similarly, even though the law on the point is
that there cannot be any inference that the accused is suffering from mental unsoundness merely for the reason that no motive was established or motive established is too trivial, according to us, the fact that there is no motive or that the motive alleged is too trivial, is also a circumstance that can be taken note of along with other circumstances in the matter of considering the question as to whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. In the case on hand, the prosecution has examined Ajith Kumar referred to in paragraph 2 herein as PW11 to prove the motive. PW11 deposed that he was residing at the time of occurrence in a rented house owned by the father of the deceased boy. PW11 deposed that once while he was talking with his friends, the accused gave a fist on his back and later, came to him in a violent mood with a club and beat him using the same. PW11 deposed that he
-: 21 :- managed to obtain the club from the accused and then gave a blow to him using the same club then and there. PW11 also deposed that the accused used to ask him for money and that
he used to give money initially but later stopped paying money to the accused. PW11 also deposed that after the said occurrence, the father of the deceased wanted him to vacate the house. As already noticed, the motive alleged by the prosecution is that since the father of the deceased did not take steps to evict PW11 from his house that the accused murdered the boy. Having regard to the brutal manner in which the victim was killed, it is very difficult to hold that a sane person would kill a boy in the aforesaid manner for such a trivial reason. In other words, had this been a case where the accused was not suffering from any mental ailments, the motive alleged would not be the motive for the accused to commit the crime. In the absence of any material for us to infer any other motive for the accused to cause the death of the victim, we are of the view that the said fact can also be considered in the matter of considering whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. That apart, as already noticed, when the mother of the deceased boy rushed to the
-: 22 :-
scene and required the accused to leave the child, he left the child keeping the knife on the body of the child itself. It was the mother of the boy who removed the knife from the body of the boy. As deposed by PW1, the accused was moving thereafter in the very same street gently as if nothing had happened. The aforesaid aspect also needs to be considered as subsequent conduct of the accused. True, the accused had carried a knife with him. Psychosis is a mental illness which primarily causes the patient to believe that he/she is persecuted by some
unknown person or superhuman agency, among other symptoms. It also causes the patient to believe that persons are constantly plotting against him to attack him. As such, the fact that the accused was carrying a knife with him cannot be said to be premeditation or preparation of the act, for the said act could be attributed as a consequence of the mental ailment of the accused. As noted, the act was not committed in a manner which showed a desire on the part of the accused to
conceal the same and the accused has not showed consciousness of guilt or made efforts to avoid detection.
17. As noted, the law on the point is that even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was -: 23 :-
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.
18. As noted, one of the contentions raised by the
learned Public Prosecutor is that if at all the accused was suffering from any mental ailment, the same might be due to substance abuse and if that be the case, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Except the statement of the father of the accused recorded in Ext.D1 and the opinion expressed by some of the witnesses examined in the case that the accused used to consume alcohol and intoxicating substances, there is no evidence in this case to show that the substance abuse is a cause for the psychiatric ailment suffered by the accused. Even the opinion relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor to bring home the said point is only that continuous use of substance abuse will result in irritable mood and psychosis. Inasmuch as there is nothing on record to indicate that the mental ailments
-: 24 :-
suffered by the accused as found in the Mental Health Centre, Thrissur where he was undergoing treatment before and after the occurrence, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor that the mental ailment suffered by the accused is due to substance abuse. On an evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a case where the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC and he is liable to be acquitted under Section 334 of the Code.
19. In view of the provisions of Section 335 of the
Code which provides for detention in safe custody of a person acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind and Section 339 which empowers the State Government to deliver a person of unsound mind, detained under Section 335, to any relative or friend of the person upon application and on giving security that the person delivered will be taken care of properly and produced for inspection of such officer, at such times and places, as the State Government may direct, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to be kept in safe custody as provided under Section 335 of the Code in one of the mental health establishments in the State in accordance
-: 25 :- with the rules, if any, framed by the State Government. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Director General of Prisons and the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala in terms of Section 335(4) for taking further action in terms of Section 338 of the Code. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence imposed against the accused by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section 334 of the Code subject to Section 335(1)(a) of the Code. Registry to return the original of Ext.D1 to the Superintendent, Mental Health Centre, Thrissur. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE. ds