R. v. Athumani s/o Mlia, Crim. Sass. 83-D-67; 26/5/67; Georges, C. J.

R. v. Athumani s/o Mlia, Crim. Sass. 83-D-67; 26/5/67; Georges, C. J.

Accused was charged with murder. The policeman who arrested him testified that the victim had stated, in the presence of the accused, that the accused had approached him in the victim’s tea-shop to ask him for food, and that when he refused the accused had beaten him. The victim’s son, apparently an infant also testified that the he saw the accused strike his father with an iron bar. The assessors requested that a medical investigation be conducted to determine whether the accused was legally sane, but the request was denied.

            Held: (1) The policeman’s account of the victim’s statement was admissible under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, as a statement “made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death” in a case in which “the cause of that person’s death” came into question (2) While the child’s testimony was admitted, the court should not rely heavily on his evidence. It was not given on oath, as he could not understand the nature of an oath. (3) The refusal of food could not amount to provocation. It would not be a wrongful act or insult. (4) The facts that the accused had no apparent motive for the attack, that he was walking about carrying a heavy burden (a gearbox and a gear shaft ), and that he did not run away after the deed, did not raise a question as to the capacity of the accused to understand the nature and quality of his act, so as to warrant a medical investigation. The Accused was found guilty of murder as charged.