AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J
This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21 April 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Sessions
Case No.68 of 2013, in which the Appellant has been convicted as under:-
(i)Â conviction under Section 452 IPC sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months;
(ii) for Section 307 IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months;
(iii) for the first murder, under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months; and
(iv) for the second murder, under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
2. The prosecution case, as emerged from the record, canbe stated as follows:-
     Complainant - Mathias Vaz (PW 12) lodged a complaint with the Old Goa Police Station against the Appellant on the day of the incident
itself, which occurred on 2 September 2013 and on the basis of which a First information Report came to be registered, vide No.134/2013, under
Sections 302, 307 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC.  Mathias Vaz is the father of injured PW13 - Edgar Vaz and the father-in-law of the
deceased Norine Vaz and the husband of the deceased Aurita Vaz.
3. On the fateful day of 2 September 2013 around 20.00 hours Mathias Vaz entertaining his three friends, who had been to his house from
Kolhapur for a dinner namely, Santosh Gosawi (PW 19), Sharad Gosawi (PW 20), and Appaso Prasad (PW 21). When he was enjoying the dinner
with his friends, the Appellant entered into his house along with two persons, who came over there on a motorcycle. While the friends of the Appellant
remained outside, the Appellant entered in the house and started showing a piece of printed paper and alleged that Edgar Vaz had circulated the
same in the Bambolim area, which contains a defamatory statement about the Appellant, due to which he was defamed. The matter in the said
paper pertained to some property rights of the Appellant vis-a-vis his sister deceased Norine, which was left by their deceased mother.
4. Mathias Vaz asked the Appellant to sit down so that he can read the paper. At that time, Edgar Vaz came out and asked the Appellant to
come on the next day as there were guests. It is alleged that after hearing the same, the Appellant took out a knife from his pant and rushed inside the
house to attack Edgar Vaz. The Appellant stabbed Edgar Vaz in his back and armpit. The Appellant thereafter stabbed his sister and the
wife of Edgar viz. Norine on her neck. When deceased Aurita wife of Mathias Vaz tried to intervene, she too was stabbed repeatedly by the
Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant was about to assault his guests, who ran away from the spot.
5. Mathias Vaz thereafter rushed to the first floor of his house and started shouting for help. He noticed the Appellant coming out of the house
slitting his neck and hands with the same knife and thereafter along with his two companions left the spot. Mathias Vaz dialed 100 and 108 for the
Police and Ambulance, which came over there within 15 to 20 minutes. By that time, his wife and the daughter-in-law were unconscious,
subsequently they succumbed to their injuries inflicted by the Appellant on the vital parts and declared dead by the Medical Officer of the Government
Medical College, Bambolim.
6. It is alleged by Mathias Vaz that the reason behind the assault was that after the death of Norine's, mother about 11/2 months back, a
dispute arose over the distribution of the property of the parents of the Appellant and Norine. Otherwise, the relations were quite cordial. However,Â
Mathias Vaz was not aware of development of the dispute, which developed subsequently.
7. PW 37 - Krishna Sinari, who was attached to the Old Goa Police Station at the relevant time, held investigation into the Crime. After
recording the complaint of Mathias Vaz, he visited the scene of occurrence along with the police staff, a photographer and the panch witnesses. In
the presence of the panch witnesses namely, Shrinarayan Nayar (PW 3) and Jayant Peter, he drew a detailed scene of offence panchanama. He
collected the blood stains from the spot. A sketch of the scene of occurrence was drawn. The Investigating Officer had carefully examined and
observed all the minute details from the house of the Complainant Mathias Vaz. The essential measurements were taken as well as the police
photographer took photographs from various angles. The seized samples of blood and other articles were duly sealed under panchanama. The
Investigating Officer had also pressed into service the Dog Squad and the Finger Prints Expert.
8. The Investigating Officer then visited the Government Medical College, Bambolim, and attached the blood stained clothes of the victim Edgar
Vaz, which were on his person in the presence of panch witnesses as well as his blood soaked underwear and T-Shirt. Similarly, he had attached the
Bullet Royal Enfield motorcycle of the Appellant bearing Registration No. GA-07-H5031, which was parked at the front side of Casualty Ward of the
hospital. There were blood stains over its rear part of seat, petrol tank, side panel, silencer as well as right side of the engine. The samples were
lifted from those parts along with control sample of the layer of the petrol tank of the bullet motorcycle.
9. On 3 September 2013 the Investigating Officer visited the Government Medical College and in the presence of PW 1 Helena Lourenco and Mr.
Jaime Pinto drew inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Aurita. He noticed following deep cut injuries/puncture wounds:
“(i) near her left collar boneadmeasuring   3 cm. approximately;
(ii)Â below left side of neck 3 cm. approximately;
(iii)Â on the right chest 4 cm. approximately;
(iv)Â near right breast 5 cm. approximately;Â
(v)Â on the right upper shoulder 4 cm. approximately;
(vi) near left side of navel 5 cm. approximately;
(vii)Â left breast 2.5 cm. approximately; and
(viii)one small cut injury on the right upper aspect of shoulderâ€.
10. Similarly, inquest panchanama over the dead body of Norine was drawn in the presence of the same witnesses. He noticed the following
injuries:
“(a) there was a sharp cut and puncture injury at the middle of the chest 5 x 2 cm. approximately;
(b)Â cut injury on the left bicep 9.5 x 2 cm. approximately;
(c)Â injury below left armpit 3 cm approximately; and
(d) injury on left side of the neck 5 x 2 cm.â€
11. PW 28 - Dr. Andre Fernandes conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Aurita. The said Postmortem Report is at Ex.121.
12. PW 7 - Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar conducted postmortem of the dead body of Norine. The said Postmortem Report is at Ex.135.
13. The Investigating Officer had collected the Postmortem Reports and forwarded the seized clothes as well as the blood samples of the victims
and the accused for Chemical Analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The knife used in the commission of the offence has been
discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, at the instance of the Appellant in the presence of the panch witnesses.  had also recorded the
statements of the witnesses including the eye witnesses. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory Reports were received, which are at Ex.141 and
Ex.145. The Investigating Officer had also requested the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, to record the statement of Edgar Vaz, under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the Autopsy Reports, the death of both the deceased Norine and Aurita were homicidal.Â
After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer has laid a Charge-sheet against the Appellant and one more accused Noel Monterio s/o
Albino Monteiro in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji.
14. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Panaji, as the offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
15. The learned Sessions Judge, by her order dated 23 January 2014 found sufficient material to frame Charge under Sections 452, 302 and 307
IPC only against the present Appellant, by discharging accused no.2 - Noel Monterio as, according to her, there was no prima facie material
showing the complicity of Accused no.2 - Noel Monterio in commission of the offence or for that matter, even sharing the common intention with the
Appellant. Thus, Accused no.2 was discharged from the case by the learned Sessions Judge.
16. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge framed the Charge against the Appellant under Sections 452, 302 and 307 IPC. It was read over and
explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The defence of the Appellant, as emerged from his Statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as from the line of the cross-examination, is that of denial of commission of the offences
alleged. The Appellant also took a defence during crossexamination that the injuries sustained by him were due to assault by Edgar Vaz. No
defence evidence has been adduced on his behalf.
17. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses, in order to substantiate the Charge against the Appellant. The learned Sessions Judge, after
going through the evidence, the material on record and after hearing the prosecution and defence, by the impugned judgment and the order convicted
and sentenced the Appellant as above.
18. We have heard Shri Desai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant. The learned Senior Counsel has been fair enough to admit
that the Appellant was responsible for causing the death of his sister Norine as well as her mother-in-law Aurita, though he had no intention to kill his
sister and the mother-in-law at all, but for a grave and sudden provocation to him, due to the letter written by Edgar Vaz defaming him. It is further
contended that the Appellant had no intention at all even to assault Edgar Vaz, but, as he was provoked by Edgar Vaz asking him to come on the next
day when he approached his house for seeking clarification about the said letter, which provoked him, resulting into causing hurt to Edgar Vaz. It is
vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the contents of the said letter were so defamatory, which provoked the Appellant to such an
extent resulting into the assault and, therefore, his case falls under Exception-I of Section 300 IPC as well as under Section 84 IPC. According to the
learned Senior Counsel, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of his act and, therefore, it is a clear case of acquittal. The learned
Senior Counsel took us through the evidence of Mathis Vaz, Umesh Asrekar and other few witnesses in order to demonstrate the mental state
of the Appellant. According to him, there was no property dispute either. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that there is absolutely no
dispute as regards the medical evidence, panchanamas, recoveries, and the reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory etc.Â
19. So far as Section 84 IPC is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the unsoundness of mind need not be certified by a
Psychiatrist. The sequences of event, as shown in the evidence clearly indicate that the Appellant had lost his mental balance and, therefore, not only
had he inflicted lethal blows on the person of his sister Norine and her mother-in-law Aurita but, inflicted injuries to himself also. The learned Senior
Counsel, therefore, has placed a reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC
online 645.
We shall deal with the said ruling in the subsequent paragraphs. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that had it been the intention of the
Appellant to commit murder of his sister, he could have murdered her when he was invited at the Church by his sister. This also shows that he had no
intention at all to eliminate his sister or deceased Aurita. The learned Senior Counsel has specifically denied the prosecution allegation that there was a
property dispute between the Appellant and his sister. It is also argued that the Hurt Certificate of Edgar Vaz does not indicate that the injuries
were inflicted on the vital parts and, therefore, there is no question of convicting the Appellant under Section 307 IPC, as he had no intention to
commit the murder of his brotherin-law i.e. Edgar. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
20. Mr. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while strongly countering the arguments of the defence contended that the Appellant had
full intention to kill Edgar Vaz, as is evident from the nature of the injuries inflicted on his person and, therefore, he had been rightly convicted under
Section 307 IPC.
21. On the point of a grave and sudden provocation, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there was neither grave nor sudden
provocation to the Appellant by any of the victims or the deceased for the simple reason that the Appellant had been showing the said letter to the
Villagers and thereafter he came to the house of the victims, fully prepared with a knife and then brutally assaulted not only his real sister Norine but
her mother-in-law Aurita, who had not at all provoked the Appellant in any manner whatsoever. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our
attention to the fact that the Appellant had slashed the neck of Aurita five times even after she fell near the sofa, which demonstrates his clear
intention to commit murder not only of his sister but also her mother-in-law.
22. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, only in order to create an evidence that he was assaulted by Edgar Vaz, the Appellant
inflicted injuries on his person but then, he himself drove his motorcycle in complete sense and approached the casualty of the hospital. The so-called
letter is unsigned and there is no evidence that, in fact, it was written by Edgar Vaz. The clear motive, according to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, was the dispute of the property and, therefore, the Appellant had eliminated his sister, which is clear from the evidence of Edgar Vaz.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, therefore, supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
23Â Indubitably, deaths of Norine and Aurita were homicidal. As a matter of fact, the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, has not disputed the
inquest panchanama (Ex.36) as well as the homicidal deaths of both the deceased including the fact that it was the Appellant, who was responsible for
causing the deaths of the deceased as well as the injuries on the person of Edgar Vaz. Nevertheless, it would be apposite to go through the
evidence of PW 7 - Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar, who had conducted the autopsy of deceased Norine Vaz and PW 28 Dr. Andre Fernandes, who had
conducted the autopsy of deceased Aurita Vaz.
The evidence of PW 7 - Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar indicates that at the time of conducting the autopsy of Norine Vaz, he had noticed the following
injuries:-
“(i)       Incised penetrating wound measuring 4.5 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep, placed over left middle 1/3rd of front of chest
medially with lower medial end acutely cut placed 9.5 cm from medial end of clavicle, 0.5 cm from midline and 122 cm from left heel and upper outer
is less acutely cut end. Margins are clean cut. It has made a cut through the skin, subcutaneous tissues, chest muscles, 4th intercostal space muscle
and adjacent 4th and 5th coastal cartilage and lateral border of sternum at 5th coastal cartilage attachment of total thickness of 4.2 cm, then made a
cut of 4 cm x 5 mm x 1 mm in the anterior aspect of pericardial sac, then perforating the heart with entry wound of 3 cm x 3 mm over upper border
of right anterior aspect of ventricular wall cutting through the wall, left interventricular septum and mitral valve and existing through the left atrium in
the lower part with total track of 4 cm then making cut of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm for posterior border of left lung lower lobe and making incised
wound of 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm at paraverterbral region in 7th intercostal space. There is extravasation of blood all along the track of wound and
the total depth from skin to the posterior chest wall is 15 cm. This wound is directed before backward, inwards medially and downwards and is reddish
and fresh. Left chest cavity contains 540 gm of blood clot and approximately 150 ml of fluid blood. Left lung is collapsed; pericardial cavity contains
150 gm of blood cloth. This injury was caused by sharp pointed cutting edge weapon and antemortem.Â
(ii)Â Incised perforating wound, reddish and fresh horizontally oblique with clean cut margin, with medial upper less acutely cut end placed 10 cm
below left mastoid and lateral lower end acutely cut placed 10 cm from acromion process and exit wound of 3 cm x 1 cm horizontally oblique with
upper outer end acutely cut and placed above spine of scapula and 135 cm above left heel, the whole track measures 7 cm involving skin,
subcutaneous tissue, muscles, subcutaneous tissue and skin. It has extravasation of blood along the track and is directed backward, downward and
outwards. Entry wound measures 5 cm x 2 cm. this injury is caused by sharp pointed cutting edge weapon and antemortem.
(iii)Â Incised wound, reddish and fresh, horizontally oblique measuring 7 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm bicep muscle deep with clean cut margins, with upper
medial end placed 23 cm from medial epicondyle of left hand and lower outer end placed 18 cm from lateral epicondyle. Cutting through skin,
subcutaneous tissue and left bicep muscle fibre. This injury is caused by sharp cutting edge weapon and antemortem.
(iv)Â Incised punctured wound, measuring 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 10 cm, reddish, fresh and horizontally oblique placed on lateral side of chest wall in left
side along anterior axillary fold with inner lower end placed 32 cm from heel, margins are clean cut. It has made a cut through the skin, subcutaneous
tissue, chest muscle and intercostal muscle at 4th intercostal space, not entering the chest cavity. There is extravasation of blood along the track of
the wound. This injury is caused by sharp, pointed cutting edge weapon and antemortemâ€.
(v) Linear abrasion measuring 5 cm placed lateral to entry wound of injury number â€" 2, horizontally oblique over left shoulder, caused by
pointed weapon and antemortemâ€.
          According to Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar, the death was within 24 hours prior to the preservation of the body at the
Government Medical College Morgue, Bambolim and the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic and shock caused due to a sharp pointed penetrating
cutting weapon, which was necessarily fatal and the injury was fresh at the time of death. The Autopsy Report is proved at Ex.56.Â
25. This witness had also examined the weapon of offence i.e. a knife having total length of 28.2 cms. The length of the blade was 14.5 cms., and
the breadth close to the handle was 4 cms. The breadth in mid section was 3.5 cms. The blade had multiple brown colour stains on either side.
The injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the said knife. The report of the Medical Officer is at Ex. 60. There is no effective cross-
examination of Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar,
26. Similar is the evidence of Dr. Andre Fernandes, who had conducted the postmortem of deceased Aurita Vaz, aged 65 years, on 3 September
2009. He had noticed the following injuries:-
“(a) Incised penetrating wound, reddish and fresh, vertically oblique, 2.5 cms. x 1.5 cm. into chest cavity deep, placed on left breast medial
aspect, upper medial end is acutely cut and placed 16 cms. from midline and 116 cms. above left heel. It has made a cut through the skin,
subcutaneous tissues, breast tissue, chest muscles, fifth inter-costal space muscle and adjacent fifth and sixth ribs in the mid clavicle line of total
thickness of 4.2 cms. then made a cut of 2.2 cms.x 3 mm x 1 mm in the anterior aspect of pericardial sac and made a cut of 2.00 cms x 2 mm x 7 mm
deep to the heart muscle 2 cms. above from the apex of the heart on the anterior inferior surface. It has not entered the heart cavity. There is
extravasation of blood all along the track of the wound and the total length from the skin to the inferior surface of the heart is 6.5 cms. The wound is
directed before backwards, inwards medially and downwards. The said wound is caused by sharp penetrated cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in
nature.
(b)Â Incised penetrating wound, reddish and fresh, horizontally oblique, 4.5 cms. X 2 cms.x chest cavity deep, placed on right side parasternal region
of chest. The inner medial end is acutely cut and is placed 2 cms. from the midline and 124 cms. above right heel. It has made a cut through the skin,
subcutaneous tissues, chest muscles, second intercostals space muscles and made a cut of 1.2 cms. x 2 mm x 2 mm on the above border of third rib, 2
cms. from the midline. The total thickness of the chest wall is 2.8 cms. It then entered the right side chest cavity. The right side chest cavity
contains 390 gms. of blood clot and 410 ml. approx. of fluid blood. The right lung is in state of complete collapse. On examining the lung surface
there is a cut measuring 2 cms. X 2 mm X 3.5 cms. on the anterior inferior surface of upper lobe of right lung. There is extravasation of blood all
along the track of the wound and the total length from skin to the wound in the lung is 7.8 cms. The wound is directed before backwards, in wards,
outwards and downwards. The said wound is caused by sharp pointed cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in nature.
(c)Â Incised punctured wound, reddishand fresh, horizontally oblique, 5 cms x 5 mm x 12 cms. deep, placed on upper, inner quadrant of right side
breast. Inner medial end is acutely cut and is placed 8 cms. from the midline. It has made a cut through the skin subcutaneous tissues, breast
tissues, chest muscle and intervening blood vessels causing large collection of blood in the track. The track is convergent and ends in the right axilla
space. The total weight of the blood clot is 260 gms. It is directed before backwards, inwards and outwards. The said wound was caused by
sharp penetrated cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in nature.
(d)Â Incised penetrating wound, reddish and fresh, horizontally oblique, 3 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep, placed on left side upper back of chest just
above the superior border of left scapula. The inner medial end is less acutely cut and is placed 5.5 cms. from the midline and 135 cms. above the
left heel. It has made a cut through the skin, subcutaneous tissues, chest muscles, second intercostals space muscles, in the central scapular line and
then entered the left side chest cavity. Â Total thickness of the chest wall is 4 cms. The left side chest cavity contains 410 gms. of blood clots and
approx.440 ml. of fluid blood. The left lung is in state of complete collapse. On examining the left lung, on the posterior (back) aspect of the upper lobe
apical region, there are two cuts present, one on medial aspect, medial end 2 cms. From the hilum measuring 2 cms. X 2 mm x 3 cms. and the other
lateral, inner medial end is placed 5 cms. from the hilum measuring 2.5 cms x 5 mm x 4 cms. There is extravasation of blood all along the track of
the wound and the total length from the skin to the lung is 8 cms. It is directed from above downwards, inwards and partially outwards. This
wound was caused by sharp pointed cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in nature.
(e)Â Incised perforating wound, reddish and fresh, horizontally oblique with an entry wound measuring 3.5 cms. x 1 cm., medial inner end, acutely cut
and placed 10.5 cms. below the left mastoid prominence at the base of the neck and exist wound of 3 cms. x 1 cm. horizontally oblique, upper inner
end acutely cut and placed 3 cms. from the midline and 133 cms. above the left heel at the left side inner third clavicular region. The whole track
measured 7.2 cms. and had extravasation of blood and is directed from back to front and above downwards. This wound was caused by sharp
pointed cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in nature.
(f)Â Incised perforating wound reddish and fresh, horizontally oblique with an entry wound measuring 4 cms. x 2 cms. placed at front anterior upper
aspect of right shoulder, inner end is acutely cut and is placed 14.5 cms from the midline and 133 cms. above right heel and with a horizontal oblique
exist wound measuring 1 cm x 3 mm placed at the posterior (back) aspect of right shoulder. There is extravasation of blood present all along the track
of the wound and measures 7 cms. It is directed from front to back and is caused by sharp pointed cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in nature.
(g)Â Incised penetrating wound reddish and fresh, horizontally oblique measuring 4.5 cm x 2 cm x abdominal cavity heel, placed on left side para-
umbilical region of abdomen, inner end is acutely cut and is placed 2.5 cms. from the midline and 95 cms. above left heel. It has made a cut to the skin
subcutaneous fat and tissues, abdominal wall muscles and peritoneum and entered the abdominal cavity and made a cut of 3.5 cms. X 2 cms. x 1 cm
thick to the omentium and then made a nick to the greater curvature of stomach measuring 4 mm x 2 mm x 2 mm. There is extravasation of blood
all along the track of the wound in the abdominal wall in the omentium and stomach. Traces of liquid blood present on the outer aspect of the stomach
and omentium. The total length of the track of the wound is 8.5 cms. and is directed before backwards, inwards, upwards and medially. This wound
was caused by sharp pointed cutting edge weapon and ante mortem in nature.
(h) Lacerated wound reddish and fresh, vertically oblique, measuring 2.5 cms. x 5 mm x scalp tissue deep, lower inner end is placed 1.5 cms
from midline on the left side lower occipital region of back of head. This wound was caused by blunt and ante mortem in natureâ€.
27. It is opined by the Expert that injury nos.1 to 4 were ante mortem, fresh and necessarily fatal. Injury nos.5 to 8 were simple in nature. PW 28 -
Dr. Andre Fernandes had also examined the same knife and opined in similar manner to that of Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar. The Autopsy Report is
proved at Ex.121. There is no effective cross-examination of PW 28 - Dr. Andre Fernandes  by defence, except certain suggestions, which
rather buttress the factum of the homicidal death with the same knife.
28. Since, nothing could be elicited from the crossexaminations of both Dr. Sunil Chimbolkar and Dr. Andre Fernandes, which would render
their testimonies unworthy of credit, the next question which needs consideration is as to whether it was the Appellant, who was responsible for
intentionally and knowingly caused death of his sister deceased Norine and her mother-in-law deceased Aurita Vaz or whether because of grave and
sudden provocation, he caused their deaths bringing the case within the purview of Exception-I of Section 300 IPC coupled with the fact that the
Appellant did the same act of causing death of two deceased by reason of unsoundness of his mind, as contemplated in Section 84 IPC?
29. The evidence of Mathias Vaz indicates that on 2 September 2013 around 8.00 p.m., he was in a party at his residence along with his guests
namely, Santosh Gosawi, Sharad Gosawi and Appaso Prasad . When the Appellant came over there on his motor bike and asked Mathias whether he
knew him, upon which this witness answered that he knew him very well as a family member. The Appellant thereafter took out a paper from his
pocket and asked the witness whether he knows the contents of the said letter. When this witness asked the Appellant to sit down so that he can see
the contents of this letter, Edgar came over there and asked his father Mathias to call the Appellant on the following day since there were
guests. The evidence of Mathias Vaz further reveals that thereafter the Appellant brushed him aside and rushed towards Edgar. He whipped out
a knife from his left side of pant's pocket and went to attack Edgar. Edgar unsuccessfully tried to protect himself from the attack, however,
the Appellant stabbed Edgar on his back. He made one more attempt to assault Edgar by poking the knife into his left arm pit. Hearing the
commotion and shouts by Edgar, who called his mother, Norine - sister of the Appellant, who was standing with  Mathias Vaz rushed towards
the Appellant and so also deceased Aurita. The evidence further indicates that when Norine shouted at the Appellant asking him to stop the
nonsense, the Appellant stabbed Norine twice on her stomach and then on her hand. He did not stop there but, inflicted five wounds on her
neck with the said knife due to which she collapsed on the ground. When deceased Aurita asked the Appellant “why are you doing this to my
sonâ€. The Appellant rushed towards Aurita and poked the knife in her chest, due to which she too collapsed near the sofa. The Appellant slashed
her neck five times with the said knife. Thereafter, he turned towards Edgar Vaz and rushed towards him. However, Edgar Vaz ran away from the
back door of the house. The Appellant chased him, however, Edgar Vaz crossed the compound wall, jumped on the road and escaped in the dark in
the neighbour's compound. The Appellant chased Edgar Vaz towards neighbour's house.
30. It is testified by Mathias Vaz that his guest were very much present at the time of the incident. He thereafter ran to the first floor of the
house and started shouting for help. He managed to call numbers 108 and 100 from the terrace through his mobile phone. It is testified that the
Appellant thereafter tried to cause injuries to himself with the same knife on his stomach, hand and neck and thereafter he started his motorbike
and went away. 20 to 25 minutes thereafter the police and ambulance arrived at the scene and shifted Aurita and Norine to the hospital. This is
what, is the evidence of an eye witness - Mathias Vaz about the actual incident, in question. A futile attempt has been made to rebut his
testimony during cross. The suggestions given are insignificant. Rather, it fortified the prosecution story to considerable extent.
31. His evidence qua the incident has been substantially corroborated by the independent witnesses namely, Santosh Gosawi, Sharad GosawiÂ
and Appaso Prasad.
32. The evidence of Santosh Gosawi reveals that due to his Printing business, he is acquainted with Mathias Vaz for 10 to 15 years. Santosh
Gosawi is a resident of Kolhapur and used to visit Goa intermittently in connection with his Printing business. As regards the incident, the sum and
substance of his evidence is that, on 2 September 2013 he visited Margao in connection with his business activities. While returning back from
Margao, he gave a call to Mathias Vaz at about 2.00 p.m. who invited him for dinner at his house around 8.00 pm Accordingly, Santosh Gosawi
along with his partner Sharad Gosawi and Appaso Prasad (driver), visited the house of Mathias Vaz. He testified that a person entered into
the house holding a paper in his hand and while shouting he was trying to show the said paper to Mathias Vaz. The said person was found furious
and angry. When Edgar asked him to come on the following day since there were guests, the said person assaulted Edgar on his back by means of a
knife. When the wife of Edgar viz. Norine tried to interfere in order to save her husband, the said person stabbed Norine on her neck as well as on her
stomach and chest due to which she collapsed on the spot. It is further testified by Santosh Gosawi that when Aurita started shouting loudly, the
said person inflicted multiple stabs on her stomach, neck and hand due to which she too collapsed on the sofa. However, Edgar escaped from the
rear door of the house. The said person followed him. He also deposed that two girls came down from the first floor of the house of which one was
the daughter of Edgar, aged about 3-4 years old and other girl, aged about 20 years. It is testified that after witnessing the incident his partnerÂ
PW 20 - Sharad Gosawi and the driver Appaso Prasad fled away from the spot in their vehicle. This witness, however, noticed that the said
person who attacked Norine and Aurita stabbed himself in the stomach and neck with the said knife. Santosh Gosawi also ran towards his vehicle
and joined Sharad Gosawi and Appaso Prasad. They came to their hotel. After about half an hour, Santosh Gosawi called Mathias on his
mobile phone by asking him if he needs any help, upon which Mathias Vaz requested them to come back immediately. Accordingly, these three
witnesses came to the house of Mathias Vaz again.
33. Similar is the evidence of Sharad Gosawi and Appaso Prasad. These three are independent and chance witnesses. The defence could not
rebut their testimonies nor anything could be brought out, which would render their testimonies unbelievable. There is no reason for these witnesses to
testify against the Appellant, as none of them have any axe to grind against him. Their evidence thus, substantially corroborates the testimony of
Mathias Vaz insofar as time, venue and manner of occurrence is concerned. The learned Trial Judge has correctly appreciated the testimonies of all
the witnesses.
34. Coming back to the incident in question. Edgar Vaz testified in clear and unequivocal terms that after the death of his mother-in-law
(mother of the Appellant and Norine), she left certain landed property about which she had indicated that it has to be divided amongst her two siblings
i.e. Norine and the Appellant. When the Appellant came to know about the wish of his mother of dividing the property, he was very much disturbed
and used to argue with Norine about it. It is also testified by Edgar that the relations of the Appellant with his mother were not cordial prior to her
death and that the Appellant was, therefore, residing separately with his wife at Vasco and then shifted to Bambolim after the death of his mother.
Due to the arrogant nature of the Appellant and because of the property matter, their relations with the Appellant were not good.
35. As regards the incident, it has come in his evidence that he was at home with his wife Norine and daughter on the first floor. They had a small
prayer in the house after the Church bell rang. Around 7.20 p.m., Edgar Vaz left the house as he wanted a copy of CD from Merces in respect
of his business connections and that the guests of Kolhapur were to come to his house to collect the CD. He received a phone call from Norine,
who informed him that the Appellant had arrived and he wanted to discuss something about the property and the said letter. Edgar returned home
when the guests were already sitting along with his father in the balcony of the house. He testified that thereafter the Appellant asked his father
whether he knew him upon which his father replied that he is a member of the family. The Appellant thereafter started showing a paper to his
father. Edgar Vaz over-heard the conversion between his father and the Appellant and, therefore, asked his father that since there are guests,
the issue can be discussed on the following day and to inform the Appellant accordingly. The Appellant turned furious and whipped out a knife from
his pant's pocket. He charged towards Edgar and stabbed him. However, the witness managed to defend him, but the knife pierced in his left
armpit. When the witness turned towards his mother asking her to see that what the Appellant was doing, it is testified by this witness that the
Appellant stabbed him on the left side of his back. When his wife Norine came to stop the Appellant, the Appellant started stabbing Norine also. The
Appellant stabbed Norine repeatedly on her chest and neck, due to which she collapsed. The Appellant thereafter caught hold of Aurita, who was
standing just next to this witness and started stabbing her repeatedly in the stomach and chest. Edgar testified that on noticing the same, he ran away
from the back door of the house and jumped from the fencing wall of the house. He went to the neighbour's house. However, the Appellant chased
him towards the neighbour's house, but Edgar hid himself near a Maruti car. Thereafter, Edgar shouted for help from the neighbours and requested
them to shift his mother and wife to the hospital. His neighbour - Govind shifted him to the hospital in his car. After some time, he noticed the
Appellant too coming to the same hospital and was treated by his side in the Casualty Ward for some injuries. Edgar identified the clothes on his
person, which were seized by the police about which, there is no dispute.
36. As already stated hereinabove that the evidence of Mathias, which has been duly supported by the three independent witnesses namely,
Santosh Gosawi, Sharad Gosawi and Appaso Prasad and the evidence of injured Edgar Vaz, if scrutinized conjointly there is absolutely no
room for doubt that it was the Appellant, who was responsible for not only causing the death of Norine Vaz and Aurita Vaz but, causing fatal injuries
to his brotherin-law Edgar in an attempt to commit his murder.
37. As it has been clearly deposed by Edgar that the Appellant was not happy with the fact that his deceased mother intended to divide her property
between Norine and the Appellant. This is definitely a motive for the Appellant which prompted him to form an intention and also knowledge as
regards consequences of his acts. It is a settled position of law that when there is an ocular account of the incident in question, which is well
corroborated and supported with the medical evidence including the other evidence on record, the motive loses its importance since the case is
based on the direct evidence of Mathis Vaz,  Edgar Vaz, Santosh Gosawi and Sharad Gosawi and Appaso Prasad. Previous conduct of
the Appellant is also a relevant factor which indicates his motive. Â
38. A futile attempt has been made by assailing the character of Edgar Vaz, during his cross examination by suggesting that he is alcoholic,
womanizer etc, which would not be relevant in order to disbelieve his evidence as regards the motive of the Appellant. The defence, even tried to
unearth that the relations of this witness with deceased Norine Vaz were not cordial since Norine had filed a Petition for maintenance against this
witness as well as a Marriage Petition, which the witness admits. Nevertheless, these aspects are not relevant insofar as the instant case is
concerned. These admissions of Edgar Vaz would not absolve the Appellant from the charges levelled against him.
39. The prosecution, in the case at hand, by its clear, cogent, convincing and unimpeachable evidence established the motive on the part of the
Appellant in committing not only the two murders but also an attempt on the life of his brother-in-law Edgar.
40. It would be interesting to see the said piece of paper, which is marked `Xâ€. The Appellant had tried to show it to Mathias. The learned Senior
Counsel read the entire paper. Though the contents are unpleasant and defamatory indicating the greedy nature of the Appellant and the way
he is trying to grab the entire property of his mother, it is not clear by whom it was written. It appears that the Appellant has presumed that this was
perhaps written by Edgar and, therefore, this itself can be said to be a factor giving rise to the motive to the Appellant to mount a murderous assault
upon  Edgar Vaz on the day of incident. As a matter of fact a plain reading of the said letter does not reveal anything which would have the
effect of getting provoked suddenly as already stated hereinabove.Â
41. PW 27 - Alldrine D'Souza is a close friend of the Appellant, who had turned hostile. However, when the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor confronted him with his statement before the police wherein he had stated about a property dispute between the Appellant and the
deceased Norine, he denied to have stated so. This contradiction has been proved from which, it can be inferred that there was property dispute
between the Appellant and the deceased Norine.
42. The evidence of PW 22 - Srimati Naik and PW 23 Francis Soares are relevant in the sense that PW 22 - Srimati, who was in the kitchen of the
house of Mathias Vaz suddenly came out after hearing the commotions and noticed Edgar Vaz running through kitchen towards the backside and
jumping across the wall. She had witnessed Norine and Aurita lying in a pool of blood. Obviously she got frightened and ran away towards her
house. Her presence on the spot was natural and so also the presence of PW 23 Francis, who is also next door neighbour of Mathias. He testified
that he had seen Edgar climbing the steps and sitting at his door with bleeding injuries. Edgar Vaz had requested PW 23 - Francis to lock the
door as he had an apprehension that the Appellant would kill him. The testimonies of these two witnesses remained intact during cross-examination, as
the defence could not shatter their versions.
43. A plea of the unsoundness of mind has neither been raised during the course of the trial on behalf of the Appellant nor during the cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses or in the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the plea of insanity is not
permitted to be taken for the first time before the Appellate Court. Nevertheless, in order to attract the ingredients of Section 84 IPC, the following
are the essential elements, which are required to be proved by the Appellant under Section 105 of the Evidence Act.
(i) The first one is that, the accused must, at the time   of commission of the act, be of unsound mind. (ii) Secondly, the unsoundness must
be such as to make the accused at the time when he is doing the act charged as offence, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing
what is wrong or contrary to law;
(iii) Where it is proved that the accused has committed multiple murders while suffering from mental derangement of some sort and it is found that
there is :Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (i) absence of any motive,
(ii)Â absence of secrecy,
(iii)Â want of pre-arrangement, and
(iv) want of accomplices, it would be reasonable tohold that the circumstances are sufficient to support the inference that the accused suffered
from own unsoundness of mind.
44. In view of the discussion of the evidence hereinabove, the Appellant has failed to discharge his burden, as contemplated under Section 105 of
the Evidence Act that at the time of committing the offence of murder of his sister and mother-in-law he was suffering from mental derangement or
that there was absence of motive. Rather, it has been established that he came fully prepared armed with a knife in order to eliminate Edgar Vaz.
Since Edgar was escaped from his clutches, without any rhyme or reason sans provocation from his sister and her mother-in-law he inflicted
multiple blows of knife on both the women. It is clear from the said act that he had pre-meditated and with full intention eliminated his sister and her
mother-in-law. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be due to any provocation as there is nothing on record indicating that he was
provoked by two unarmed helpless women. It is not a case where the Appellant had inflicted single blow by the Appellant.
45. The next limb of the argument on behalf of the Appellantwas that his act would, at the most fall under the category of Exception-I to Section
300 IPC i.e. culpable homicide, which is not murder as, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the Appellant was deprived of the power of his self-
control by a grave and sudden provocation. Â
46. On the day of incident, PW 14 - Alexander Pereira, whois working as a Parish Priest of St. Cruz Church received a call from Norine, as she
wanted to talk to him. It was about 7.45 p.m. PW 14 Alexander Pereira testified that Norine came to the Church. She was upset and told him
that the Appellant had received a letter, which was disturbing. This witness, therefore, asked Norine to call the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore,
came over there but did not enter into the Church. PW14 â€" Alexander Pereira talked to the Appellant and tried to convince him by saying that
such type of letters are written to create disturbance and that he should not get disturbed by such letters. Thereafter the Appellant asked Norine to
go to her home and he too followed her on his motor bike. This definitely indicates that the Appellant was not provoked by Norine nor he was deprived
of the power of self-control after having talked to PW14 - Alexander Pereira and his sister. Even after reaching the house of his sister, he first
talked to Complainant Mathias. There is nothing on record from which, even it can be remotely suggested that he was gravely and sudden provoked
either by Edgar or deceased Norine or Aurita.
47. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the said letter which would result in grave and sudden provocation and, therefore, the Appellant, without
getting provoked came to the house of his sister by asking her to go ahead. The Appellant being a Teacher, if at all had some dispute of property with
his sister could have thought of filing a suit or could have solved the issue without indulging into such heinous act. It was not expected of a Teacher.
The Appellant could have followed the advice of the Priest.
48. It is clear from the Postmortem Reports of both thedeceased that they had sustained multiple fatal injuries on their vital parts, which clearly
establishes that in the absence of any grave and sudden provocation by two helpless and hapless women one being aged 65 years, the Appellant had
brutally assaulted the unarmed women by inflicting blows on the vital parts of their bodies, which clearly indicates his mens rea. When culpable
homicide is accompanied by mens rea, detailed in Clause firstly of Section 300 IPC namely the intention to cause death, it answers murder unless
of course the accused brings the culpable homicidal under Exceptions 1 to 5 appended to Section 300 IPC. From the evidence on record, it
has been established that the Appellant intended to cause death, which can be deduced from the facts and the overall circumstances as well as from
the behaviour of the Appellant. It is not that the Appellant did not know that the multiple brutal attacks by means of a knife particularly upon an
unarmed old woman and his real sister, would not result into their deaths. He obviously intended to cause death not only of his sister and her mother-
in-law but also Edgar causing such serious injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased with the dangerous weapon like a knife which
necessarily leads to an inference that the Appellant intended to cause deaths of the victims and, therefore, the case would not fall within the first
Exception of Section 300 IPC. Had it been the intention of the Appellant only to discuss about the said letter, he would not have come prepared with a
knife, which itself demonstrates pre-meditation and  pre-planned act to assault Edgar and other victims.
49. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that inflicting injuries on himself by the Appellant itself is a factor indicating unsoundness of mind.
This argument cannot be accepted for the reason that in order to create an evidence and to show that he was attacked by Edgar Vaz, he
sustained the injuries. It is interesting to see that it was also suggested to Mathias during cross that it was Norine, who had stabbed Edgar and then
stabbed herself which has been denied by this witness. No sane man will believe or accept this statement. If the injuries were self-inflicted, there
was no reason to suggest as above. Thus, the defence raised by the Appellant is unbelievable, improbable and unacceptable. Even it cannot be
considered for the reason that it has been raised for the first time at the appellate stage. It is also palpably a false defence.
50. PW 8 Dr.Sarfaraz Ahmed had examined the Appellant.
It is pertinent to note that it was the Appellant, who himself drove his motorcycle after causing injuries to himself to the hospital which also is a
relevant fact. The following injuries are noticed:
      “(1) Multiple incised lacerated wounds over the front and the side of the neck, which were simple in nature; and
        (2) Stab injuries over the abdomen:
(i)Â over right hypochondriac region admeasuring 3 x 2Â cm,
(ii) right side for abdomen 10 cms. below injury no.(i) measuring 4 x 1 cms. (ii)     left hypochondriac region â€" 2 x 1 cm
(iii) left side of abdomen â€" 3 x 1 cms.â€
51. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra.Â
The ratio of the said ruling is that even if, the accused is not able to establish conclusively that he is of an unsound mind at the time of commission of
the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the Prosecution or by the accused, if raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of Court as regards
the one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused in which case the Court is entitled to acquit the accused on the ground
that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution is not discharged. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment can be reproduced as under:
“10.    The law undoubtedly presumes that every person committing an offence is sane and liable for his acts, though in specified
circumstances it may be rebuttable. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity was stated as follows in Dahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361:
“(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)Â There is a rebuttable presumption that theaccused 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)Â Even if the accused was not able to establishconclusively 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.â€
11. Section 84 of the IPC carves out anexception, that an act will not be an offence, if done by a person, who at the time of doing the same, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. But this onus on
the accused, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is not as stringent as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. The
accused has only to establish his defence on a preponderance of probability, as observed in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC
495, after which the onus shall shift on the prosecution to establish the inapplicability of the exception. But, it is not every and any plea of unsoundness
of mind that will suffice. The standard of test to be applied shall be of legal insanity and not medical insanity, as observed in State of Rajasthan v.
Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, as follows:
“19. ……..Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia,
loss of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to
seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.â€
12. The crucial point of time for considering thedefence plea of unsoundness of mind has to be with regard to the mental state of the accused at the
time the offence was committed collated from evidence of conduct which preceded, attended and followed the crime as observed in Ratan Lal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 533, as follows:
“2. It is now well-settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually
committed and the burden of proving this ties on the accused. In D.G. Thakker v. State of Gujarat it was laid down that “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 which rests upon a party to civil proceedingsâ€.
52. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance in Vijayee Singh and others Vs. U.P.  The relevant paragraph can be
extracted which reads as under, which necessarily on the aspect of the burden of proving a case of the accused which comes within exceptions, as
per Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act:
“Taking Section 105 as a whole the “burden of proof†and the presumption have to be considered together. The accused may raise a plea of
exception either by pleading the same specifically or by relying on probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case. He may adduce the evidence
in support of his plea directly or rely on the prosecution case itself or he can indirectly introduce such circumstances by way of cross-examination and
also rely on the probabilities and the other circumstances. Then the initial presumption against the accused regarding the non-existence of the
circumstances in favour of his plea gets displaced and on an examination of the material if a reasonable doubt arises the benefit of it should go to the
accused. The accused can also discharge the burden under Section 105 by preponderance of probabilities in favour of his plea. In respect of
the general exceptions, special exceptions, provisos contained in the Penal Code or in any law defining the offence, the accused by one of these
processes would be discharging the burden contemplated under Section 105 but in cases of the exceptions covered by special statutes and where
the burden of proof is placed on the accused to establish his plea, he will be discharging the same by preponderance of probabilities and not by merely
creating a doubtâ€.
53. The law is quite clear that the burden of proof that the Appellant by reason of unsoundness of his mind was incapable of knowing the nature of
the act is upon him in which he has miserably failed. At the cost of repetition, we would say that such plea cannot be raised for the first time at an
appellate stage as, admittedly no such plea was raised during the trial nor there is any whisper in the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even Section 105 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It is
not even the evidence of any Medical Expert indicating such mental state of the Appellant at the time of commission of offence. It is even difficult to
infer on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the Appellant was not in his senses at the time of commission of the offences. Thus, the ratio
in this ruling can be distinguished insofar as the case at hand is concerned.
54. As already discussed hereinabove, there is absolutely nothing on record from which it can be presumed that the Appellant was either not in his
senses when he committed the murder of his sister-in-law nor there is anything to show that there is gravely and suddenly provoked in order to commit
the offence. Therefore, this ratio would not be of any help and can be distinguished accordingly.
55. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on theother hand, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Elavarasan Vs State . It would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 21, 25 and 26. The ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case,
as already discussed above.
“21.   From the deposition of the above two witnesses who happen to be the close family members of the appellant it is not possible to infer
that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident or at any time before that. The fact that the appellant was working as a government
servant and was posted as a Watchman with no history of any complaint as to his mental health from anyone supervising his duties, is significant.
Equally important is the fact that his spouse Smt.Dhanalakshim who was living with him under the same roof also did not suggest any ailment afflicting
the appellant except sleeplessness which was diagnosed by the doctor to be the effect of excessive drinking. The deposition of PW3, Valli that her son
was getting treatment for mental disorder is also much too vague and deficient for this Court to record a finding of unsoundness of mind especially
when the witness had turned hostile at the trial despite multiple injuries sustained by her which she tried to attribute to a fall inside her house. The
statement of the witness that her son was getting treatment for some mental disorder cannot in the circumstances be accepted on its face value, to
rest an order of acquittal in favour of the appellant on the basis thereof. It is obvious that the mother has switched sides to save her son from the
consequences flowing from his criminal act.
25. What is important is that thedepositions of the two doctors examined as court witnesses during the trial deal with the mental health condition of
the appellant at the time of the examination by the doctors and not the commission of the offence which is the relevant point of time for claiming the
benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. The medical opinion available on record simply deals with the question whether the appellant is suffering from any
disease, mental or otherwise that could prevent him from making his defence at the trial. It is true that while determining whether the accused is
entitled to the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. the Court has to consider the circumstances that proceeded, attended or followed the crime but it is equally
true that such circumstances must be established by credible evidence. No such evidence has been led in this case. On the contrary expert evidence
comprising the deposition and certificates of Dr. Chandrashekhar of JIPMER unequivocally establish that the appellant did not suffer from any
medical symptoms that could interfere with his capability of making his defence. There is no evidence suggesting any mental derangement of theÂ
appellant at the time of the commission of the crime for neither the wife nor even his mother have in so many words suggested any unsoundness of
mind leave alone a mental debility that would prevent him from understanding the nature and consequences of his actions. The doctor, who is alleged
to have treated him for insomnia, has also not been examined nor has anyone familiar with the state of his mental health stepped into the witness box
to support the plea of insanity. There is no gainsaying that insanity is a medical condition that cannot for long be concealed from friends and relatives
of the person concerned. Non-production of anyone who noticed any irrational or eccentric behaviour on the part of the appellant in that view is
noteworthy. Suffice it to say that the plea of insanity taken by the appellant was neither substantiated nor probabilised.
26. Mr. Mani, as a last ditch attemptrelied upon certain observations made in Mahazar Ex.P3 in support of the argument that the appellant was
indeed insane at the time of commission of the offences. He submitted that the Mahazar referred to certain writings on the inner walls of the
appellant's house which suggested that the appellant was insane. A similar argument was advanced even before the Courts below and was rejected
for reasons which we find to be fairly sound and acceptable especially when evidence on record establishes that the appellant was an alcoholic, who
could scribble any message or request on the walls of his house while under the influence of alcohol. The Courts below were, therefore, justified in
holding that the plea of insanity had not been proved and the burden of proof cast upon the appellant under Section 105 of the Evidence Act remained
undischarged. The High Court has also correctly held that the mere fact that the appellant had assaulted his wife, mother and child was not ipso facto
suggestive of his being an insane personâ€.
56. A corollary of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the evidence on record clearly indicate that the Appellant had malice on account of the
property dispute. The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts and the evidence on record and reached a proper conclusion that the
prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts not only on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses but also of the injured
Edgar Vaz from which it has been established that on account of property dispute, the Appellant had a grudge against the victims and, therefore, he
had committed the offences alleged. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interference with the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
 Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed.