IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  988 OF 2004

BOBBY MATHEW ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Several reasons have been advanced by the High Court  

to  indicate  that  the  chain  of  circumstances  against  the  

appellant were complete.  These circumstances are:

(I) close acquaintance of deceased and the accused  

including visiting each others houses due to common bondage  

of hobby in photograph;

(ii) On 19th accused had called the deceased to come  

to his house on the next date;

(iii)  The deceased leaving his house in the morning  

of  20th informing  P.W.  7  his  wife  and  P.W.  8  a  close  

acquaintance that he is going to the house of the accused;

(iv) The dead body of Dr. Ravish being discovered  

in the room of first floor of the house bearing No. 278,  

Sadanandnagar, NGEF Layout of which P.W. 5 is admittedly the  

owner  and  that  room  being  in  exclusive  possession  and  

occupation of the accused where the dead body was found;

(v) On 20th and admittedly even from 15th to 21st,  

it was only the accused and P.W. 4 who were in the house, as  

P.W. 5 and his wife had left the house to go to Kerala;

(vi) The dead body of Dr. Ravish was found tied to a  

cot inside the room and body bearing as many as 31 injuries  

all over, out of which the injuries in the head region being  

ante mortem and fatal in nature.

We have heard the learned counsel on each of these  

circumstances and find that the judgment sof the trial court  

as well as the High Court have considered all aspects and  

arrived at a correct conclusion.  Learned counsel for the  

appellant,  however,  pointed  out  that  in  view  of  the  

circumstances it appears that the appellant was not mentally  

sound; as for the order made by this Court from time to time  

some  extenuation   ,  therefore,  was  to  be  given  to  the  

appellant.  We find, however, that question of any insanity  

does not arise as this was never pleaded on behalf of the  

accused-appellant at any stage.  Under Section 84 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, in order to get the benefit of

insanity or unsoundness of mind the accused is liable to  

show that on the day of the incident the accused was not in  

sound condition.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  The appellant  

is stated to be on bail.  It is directed that he be taken on  

custody  forthwith  to  undergo  the  remaining  part  of  the  

sentence.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [AFTAB ALAM]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 27, 2009.