The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence handed down to a man for the murder of his three-year-old son [Raju MA v State of Kerala]

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian rejected the insanity plea taken by convict Raju MA alias Undachi Raju and held that Raju’s behavior of remaining at the crime scene without attempting to escape was not sufficient to justify his insanity plea.

"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 said.

On July 21, 2015, Raju took his children to a neighboring house in the Panathadi Grama Panchayat area and, according to witness testimonies, fatally assaulted his son with a coconut scraper before strangling him.

It was alleged that Raju was driven by hostility towards his wife and murdered the child following a family quarrel.

Following an investigation, the police submitted a report to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in Hosdurg which later transferred the case to the Sessions Court in Kasaragod.

The sessions court convicted Raju under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹50,000.

Raju then approached the Kerala High Court against the conviction and sentence.

In his appeal, Raju’s counsel argued that he had been of unsound mind at the time of the incident and therefore, his case would come under the ambit of Section 84 of the IPC which exempts individuals of unsound mind from criminal liability.

The defence further contended that Raju's continued presence at the crime scene without any attempt to flee proved that he lacked the mental capacity to foresee the consequences of his actions. 

However, the prosecution argued that Raju had intentionally committed the brutal act in a conscious and deliberate manner.

According to the prosecution, evidence showed that Raju brutally inflicted fatal injuries on his son by dragging him around the house, hitting him with a coconut scraper and strangling him with a dhoti.

These actions supported the prosecution’s claim that Raju was fully aware of his actions.

After examining the evidence, the Court found no credible proof that Raju was legally insane at the time of the offence.

It referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Bapu @ Gujraj Singh v State of Rajasthan which distinguished between legal and medical insanity, emphasising that only the former can absolve a person of criminal liability.

The Court also cited Section 105 (Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions) of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the burden of proving legal insanity rested with the defence.

However, it noted that the defence had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the accused was incapable of understanding the nature of his actions, thereby nullifying the applicability of Section 84 of IPC.

The Court also held that the accused could not argue a lack of motive since the case relied on direct eyewitness testimony and not circumstantial evidence.

The witness accounts clearly showed how the accused took the life of the minor child, making proof of motive less significant.

It further noted that the non-examination of the accused’s wife did not weaken the prosecution case since the eyewitness evidence was sufficient enough to substantiate the charges.

On Raju not fleeing the crime scene, the Court opined that individuals may react differently after committing a crime and the absence of an attempt to escape from the crime scene would not inherently suggest a lack of rational thought.

"There is no rigid or inflexible rule that after committing a crime every accused will make an attempt to abscond," the Court added.

Hence, it dismissed Raju's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

The appellant was represented by advocates Ramesh P, Fathima Nargis KA, and Sangeerthana M.

Senior Public Prosecutor Alex M Mathew appeared for the state.

[Read Judgement]