In a decisive judgment, the Kerala High Court upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his three-year-old son, dismissing claims of insanity based on his presence at the crime scene. The convict, Raju MA, known locally as Undachi Raju, appealed on grounds that his failure to flee demonstrated impaired mental capacity. However, the court found his behavior insufficient to meet the legal standard for insanity, affirming the conviction for the 2015 killing.
The tragic incident unfolded when Raju, driven by marital discord, allegedly took his children to a nearby home in Panathadi Grama Panchayat, where he brutally attacked his young son with a coconut scraper before strangling him. Witnesses testified to these events, cementing Raju’s intent, according to the prosecution. Raju’s defense argued that his behavior at the scene—staying without fleeing—indicated a lack of mental clarity, but the Court dismissed this claim, noting that different individuals react variably after committing a crime.
The High Court underscored that staying at the crime scene does not inherently reflect an unsound mind, citing that Raju’s actions were purposeful and deliberate. The Court also leaned on a precedent from the Supreme Court, which distinguishes medical insanity from the strict legal definition that could exempt criminal liability. Ultimately, Raju’s inability to provide sufficient evidence of insanity nullified his defense under Section 84 of the IPC, which could otherwise absolve individuals of criminal accountability due to mental incapacity.
The case was fortified by eyewitness testimonies rather than circumstantial evidence, which reduced the need to prove motive, according to the Court. It also ruled that the non-examination of Raju’s wife had no impact on the prosecution’s case due to the strength of direct witness accounts. With this, the Court firmly rejected the appeal, holding Raju accountable for his actions in the deeply disturbing case.
