Lack of Motive in Crimes

State vs. Durgacharan Barik

Filed Under: Sections 84 and 302 the Indian Penal code
Appellant/Petitioner: The State
Respondent/Accused: Durgacharan Barik alias Duria
Citation: AIR 1963 Orissa 33 (V 50 C 13)
Court: In the High Court of Orissa
Judges: S. Barman and G.K. Misra This is an appeal made

on behalf of Durgacharan Barik who had been convicted for murder and sentenced to death.

Facts

Durgacharan Barik, a 22-year-old barber, was the proprietor of a Saloon. He had employed an assistant. On the day of the incident, Lingraj Mekap,an 18-year-old boy went to Durgacharan's saloon for a shave. When he reached there, there were two others who were waiting for a shave and a haircut.

Since there were only two chairs in the Saloon only two individuals could be served at the same time. Lingraj Mekap sat on one of the chairs and was being attended to by the assistant. Durgacharan, on the other hand, was shaving one of the other customers.

During this time, Durgacharan Barik and other customers were talking about a person who was very well known to Durgacharan. In the midst of the discussion, for reasons not quite clear, Durgacharan suddenly exchanged places with his assistant and began shaving Lingraj Mekap.

A while later Durgacharan inflicted a long gaping cut injury on Lingraj's neck. Lingraj struggled and managed to release himself. He then ran out of the saloon with Durgacharan in pursuit. Durgacharan caught up with him, grabbed his hair and inflicted another razor cut that stretched from his face down to his neck.

He then cut his throat again, and sat on his chest thrusting his fingers into the opening caused by the cut to pull out some cords from inside. Lingraj died on the spot. By this time people on the road intervened and hit Durgacharan a few times.

One person even poured hot water on him. In the meantime, a constable came to the scene and on seeing him, Durgacharan started running away. Some passers by caught hold of him and took him back to the place where the dead body was lying. He was then arrested and kept under observation by a doctor and ultimately sent for trial.

Before the Court, Durgacharan took a plea of unsoundness of mind. The Trial Judge however convicted Durgacharan for murder and sentenced him to death.

Arguments on behalf of Durgacharan

The argument made on behalf of Durgacharan was that there was something unaccountable in Durgacharan's act of killing Lingraj. Durgacharan's defense stated that the night before the occurrence, Durgacharan had not slept at all. He had to be carried by his assistant in a rickshaw from the saloon to his elder brother's house.

Durgacharan had also fainted a couple of times that night and had complained of a headache. The lawyer also mentioned the fact that Lingraj and Durgacharan seemed to have no hostile relations. Durgacharan's lawyer also referred to certain abnormal behaviour that he had displayed at the time of the incident.

Reference was made to the brutal nature of the murder, especially the fact that Durgacharan had sat on Lingraj's chest and had pulled out the cords out of his throat. It was also alleged that Durgacharan had made no attempt to escape and had returned to the place where the dead body was lying voluntarily.

He had not made any excuse for the killing and had not attempted to hide the razor he had used. It was also pointed out that Durgacharan had no motive for committing this crime.

And lastly, it was pointed out that the incident had taken place in broad daylight and in a public place which was proof of the extent of unsoundness of Durgacharan's mind.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that there was no evidence of any previous history of insanity. No records showed any evidence of previous outbursts of violence or exhibition of madness.

The Court also stated that the circumstances surrounding the incident did not show that Durgacharan had lost all control over himself.

Reference was made to the fact that Durgacharan followed his normal profession and was able to handle his affairs on his own.

Another important fact was that even at the time of the incident Durgacharan had been absolutely normal. He had been serving his customers and instructing his assistant.

All these circumstances according to the Court did not remotely establish the probability of insanity. The Court also rejected the statement that Durgacharan had not attempted to escape but that his running away upon seeing the policeman was an expression of his fear.

On the contrary, the Court observed that this behaviour indicated quite clearly that Durgacharan was aware of his actions; and that he knew that he had done was against the law.

Another significant aspect was that the doctor who had kept the accused under observation for a month following the incident had found him to be in a completely normal state.

Neither the Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge had suspected that Durgacharan was insane. With respect to the point about the motive, the Court observed that lack of motive did not mean that Durgacharan was insane.

Evidence produced revealed that Durgacharan had homosexual tendencies and he had been known to like young boys. It was also revealed that there was some sort of intimacy between Durgacharan and Lingraj.

Once there had even been a quarrel between them, in which Lingraj had threatened to reveal some of Durgacharan's secrets.

Durgacharan had even offered money to Lingraj in order to keep him quiet but Lingraj had refused and had thrown the money away.

Apart from this, the Court also alluded to the fact that Durgacharan, while shaving another client had suddenly changed over to Lingraj's chair.

And he had then followed Lingraj to the road where he had cut him in a way that according to the Court probably showed some deep-seated feeling of fear or revenge.

The Court therefore reached the conclusion that the plea of unsoundness of mind of the defense was incorrect. The Court confirmed the sentence of death and dismissed the appeal.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 302 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code (1860)

Top

T.N. Lakshmaiah vs. State of Karnataka

Filed under: Sections 84 and 302 of the Indian penal Code
Appellant: T.N. Lakshmaiah
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Citation: (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 219
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: M B Shah & RP Sethi

This is an appeal filed by T.N.Lakshmaiah before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court sentencing him to life imprisonment

Facts

T.N.Lakshmaiah, a government servant, was living in government quarters with his wife and son. He took a casual leave from work and took his wife, Gyathramma and teenage son, Bhaskar to a picnic spot Shivanasamudra, in Karnataka at the Kaveri falls.

It was said that Lakshmaiah took his wife and son to the edge of the falls and then he pushed his son from the top. His son fell on a rock 150 feet below. Thereafter he tied his wife's sari around her neck and strangled her to death.

The next day, he went to the police station and confessed to the crime. On the basis of this disclosure, the dead body of his wife was recovered from the place pointed out by him.

The young boy, when recovered from the rock, was found to be alive and was rushed to the hospital where he died after a day. Later, in his statement in the Trial Court Lakshmaiah denied the charge of having taken his wife and son to the falls and stated instead that he had gone to another place with his family.

He claimed that he remembered his wife had nagged him to eat his meals (two days prior to the date on which the alleged incident took place) but could not remember anything that happened thereafter.

He then claimed to remember being in prison about 6 months after the alleged incident took place. He stated that he did not remember as to what happened in the intervening period.

The Trial court formulated eight points to check whether Lakshmaiah had committed the crime or not and after reviewing the evidence, hearing the arguments and taking note of the circumstances, concluded that Lakshmaiah had committed the murders of his wife and son.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Lakshmaiah went on appeal to the High Court of Karnataka.

Arguments made on behalf of Lakshmaiah

  1. He was mentally ill at or about the time of the occurrence and the records produced during the trial showed that he was insane within the meaning of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which entitled him to acquittal.
  2. There were no eyewitnesses and the case was based only on circumstantial evidence, which had failed to connect Lakshmaiah with the commission of the crime on the basis of the chain of circumstances inferred.

Observations of the Court

The Court directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bangalore to forward Lakshmaiah's medical report to be able to ascertain his medical condition.

The report stated that Lakshmaiah was examined and was diagnosed to have "moderate depression". At the time of submission of the report his mental condition was stated to be satisfactory.

The court said that Lakshmaiah would have to prove that he was indeed insane at the time of the incident, to get the benefit of the defence of insanity.

Lakshmaiah however, did not produce any evidence to show that he was of unsound mind at or about the time of the incident.

His behaviour at the time and subsequent to the commission of the crime clearly indicated that he knew and was capable of knowing the nature of the act done by him. Finding that there was no substance in the appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 84 and 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Cases Referred:

  • State of MP vs. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998: (1961) 2 Cri LJ 43
  • Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563: (964) 2 Cri LJ 472
  • Bhikari vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1: 1966 Cri LJ 63

Top

Mst. Shanti Devi vs. The State

Filed under: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant: Mst. Shanti Devi
Respondent: The State
Citation: AIR 1968 DELHI 177
Court: n the High Court of Delhi
Judges: I D Dua and M M Ismail

Facts

On the day of the incident, when Ram Parkash and Kanhaiya Lal were passing the back lane of Shanti Devi's house, they heard shrieks of a child from inside the house. When they peeped through the window they saw that Shanti was cutting the throat of her child with a razor.

Both of them entered the house through the main gate on the other side of the wall and raised an alarm with a view to save the child's life. Meanwhile, Shiv Shankar a boy from the neighbourhood also arrived. Seeing all the three men, Shanti let the child down and threw the razor under the cot and sat on the cot.

Ram went to the jurisdictional police station and reported the case. The police came and arrested Shanti for murdering her child. The case was transferred to the Sessions Court. Shanti raised the plea of insanity. The Sessions Court raised two questions for consideration.

Firstly, whether Shanti had killed her child and secondly, whether she was insane at the time of committing the crime. The Sessions Court, on the basis of the evidence found that Shanti had killed the child.

It also found that there was no evidence to establish the plea of insanity and convicted her of murdering her child and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for life. Against this order Shanti filed the present appeal.

Arguments on behalf of Shanti Devi

The argument that was raised on behalf of her was that she was insane at the time when she killed her child; therefore, she was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal code.

Observations of the Court

The Judge went by the evidence of the eyewitness, the neighbors and the lady constable. They all stated that she was not crying or laughing and was not showing any kind of emotions. She was sitting at the same place without speaking unless she was asked questions.

The neighbors had stated that she used to laugh or cry sometimes without any reason; she was not insane but was suffering from some mental trouble. The police officer who interrogated her said that she looked perfectly normal to him after the incident but she was talking as if nothing had happened and she did not make any effort to conceal her actions and run away.

Evidence also showed that she was admitted to the Mental Hospital, Jaipur and was under treatment. The doctor treating her stated that she suffered from Maniac Depressive Psychosis. The Court noted that there was medical evidence to show that Shanti was insane before and after the occurrence of the offence.

There was also the prosecution witness's evidence about her condition and reaction at the time of the crime. The Court observed that the Sessions Court had focused only on the fact that there was no evidence to show that she was insane on the day of the crime and expressed that it had failed to appreciate the evidence.

Further, the Sessions Judge had lost sight of the motive aspect which is an important point while discussing the issue of defense of insanity and that an act of killing your child without any motive is an act of an insane person. (Refer to Quotes).

It was found that when the defense of insanity is set up, it is important to see whether it was done in a manner, which showed a desire to conceal, whether after the crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detection.

In this case, the Court found that she had not done anything of that nature and felt that she was entitled to get the benefit under Section 84 of the Code.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases Referred:

  • (1964) AIR 1964 Sc 1563 (V 1)= 1964 (2) Cri LJ 472, Dayabhai Chhagan Bhai vs. State of Gujrat
  • (1960) AIR 1960 Ker 24 (V 47)=1960 Cri LJ 73,Unniri Kannan vs. State

Quotes from the judgment:

"We are of the view that absence of motive assumes not only unusual importance, but also almost conclusive and crucial importance in a case where a mother has murdered her child, and that too, a child of such a tender age as here. As a matter of fact, the act speaks for itself as to act of a mad woman; the act itself is intrinsically the chief evidence of insanity".

Top

In Re Subramaniam alias Allabaksh

Filed Under: Section 84 of the Indian Penal code
Appellant: In Re Subramaniam alias Allabaksh
Citation: AIR 1964 Madras 526 (V 51 C 177)
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judges: Anantanarayanan and Ramakrishanan

Facts

Subramaniam alias Allabaksh, was a 23-year-old man who made a living by begging. On the day of the incident, the deceased, Syed Sultan Beevi aged 7 years along with Thangachi Ummani a 9-year-old girl were going towards the 'Dargha', after buying fruits. At that time Subramaniam caught hold of Ummani's hand who evaded his grasp.

Immediately, he caught hold of Syed Sultan and gagged her mouth with one hand and with the other hand cut her throat with a razor. This incident took place in broad daylight in the presence of other people. Syed Sultan died almost instantaneously.

As this was happening Mohideen saw the murderous assault from a distance of about 40 feet and rushed to the spot. Other people also came up and caught hold of Subramaniam. He was then tied up and beaten by the crowd.

The village headman later came to the 'Dargha' and recorded a complaint from Mohideen. A Surgeon who examined Subramaniam observed that he had some superficial injuries. He admitted that he had got these injuries when the crowd had beaten him with their hands and sticks.

At the Sessions Court Subramaniam first adhered to the appeal of insanity and claimed that he was of an unsound mind at the time of the murder. Later, he added a memorandum in his appeal and suggested that there was a dispute and the police had fabricated the case.

At the Sessions Court he was convicted for murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subramaniam then filed the present appeal against that order.

Arguments on Behalf of Subramaniam

Subramaniam's lawyer referred to the fact that about a month after the incident, he had been proved to be of an unsound mind and had been under medical treatment. After 4 months it was held that he had completely recovered from the mental illness. And it was only after this that he was sent on trial.

Observations of the Court

After examining the evidence, the Court observed that even though it was evident that Subramaniam had been suffering from mental illness after the incident, there was no evidence to show that he was of an unsound mind prior to or at the time of the incident.

The only thing known about him was that he spoke Urdu and Telegu and lived by means of begging. But other than this there was not much evidence suggesting that he was of an unsound mind at the time of the incident.

The Court further observed that even though there apparently was no clear motive for the murder, the two girls had been wearing jewelry and so it cannot be held firmly that there was no motive whatsoever for the murder.

Despite the fact that it was a very reckless move on his part to have attacked the two girls in a place that would have easily attracted the attention of other people, it cannot be concluded firmly that Subramaniam was insane.

Also, the fact that Subramaniam did not attempt to run away from the scene of murder does not show that he was of an insane mind. And even though his subsequent history indicated that he was an abnormal person prone to mental unsoundness, it cannot be proved that he was afflicted with insanity at the time of the crime.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of the Sessions Court and confirmed the conviction. Subramaniam was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

Held:The appeal was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code

Cases Referred:

  • (61) AIR 1961 SC 998 (V 48): (1961) 2 SCJ 197: 1961 (2) Cri L J State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ahmadulla

Top

Kannakunnummal Ahmed Koya vs. the State of Kerala

Filed Under: Sections 84, 300, 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant: Kannakunnummal Ahmed Koya
Respondent: The State of Kerala
Citation: MANU/KE/0036/1967, Decided on: 24.06.1966 (Unreported)
Court: Kerala High Court
Judges: Anna Chandy and M.Madhavan Nair.

An appeal against the judgement passed by the Sessions Judge convicting Kannakunnummal Ahmed Koya under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to death.

Facts

Ahmedkutty, a young man of 22 years, son of a grocery shop owner had gone to his father's shop on the day of the incident. He was lying on a platform outside the shop and reading a newspaper when Kannakunnummal Ahmed Koya crept up to him quietly, caught his chin and slit his throat with a dagger.

When a neighbouring shopkeeper heard the sounds of beating legs, he came to the scene. Seeing him, Ahmed Koya ran with the dagger in his hand. He was arrested later from his cousin's house on the basis of the First Information Report filed by the neighbouring shopkeeper.

At the time of the trial, it was contended on behalf of Ahmed Koya that he was suffering from schizophrenia and therefore did not know the nature of the act committed by him and that he should be entitled to benefit under Section 84, IPC.

Medical evidence of the Assistant Professor of the Medical College Calicut and the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital Kozhikode was recorded at this point. The medical evidence went on to show the following-

  1. About three months prior to the incident, Ahmed Koya had complained that he could hear people abusing him.

  2. He was examined for about 30 minutes but other than the fear complex, he did not exhibit any signs of schizophrenia. However, schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed without keeping the patient under observation for several days, which was not done in this case.

  3. From the mere fact that a person has a fear complex and is excitable it could not be concluded that he was suffering from Schizophrenia.

The Sessions Judge found Ahmed Koya guilty and sentenced him to death for the murder of Ahmedkutty. Against this order, this appeal was filed.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed from the medical evidence, that it was not possible to conclude that at the time of the incident, Ahmed Koya was suffering from schizophrenia. The High Court also observed that his behaviour before or after the incident was not supportive of his plea for exemption under section 84, IPC.

What had to be seen was whether insanity could be proved at the time of committing the act and whether the insanity was of such a nature that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. The mere absence of motive could not be an indication of insanity.

The High Court concluded that the attack had been planned otherwise it would not have been possible for a much older man of 60 years to overpower and slit the throat of a 22 years old man.

Ahmed's behaviour in planning the attack, approaching Ahmedkutty with a dagger quietly without making a sound and slitting his throat so that he could not even cry out for help, and running away when he realized he had been seen, did not show that he had committed the offence under an insane delusion.

He also knew that what he had done was wrong which is why he ran away when he realized he had been seen. The High Court also observed that at the time of the trial, Ahmed gave a logical and relevant statement, an indicator of his sharp memory.

The High Court upheld the conviction by the Sessions Judge but in view of his age and the fact that he had a mental disease, though not of a degree to attract the application of Section 84 IPC reduced his sentence to imprisonment for life.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
  • Sections 84, 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases Referred:

  • State of MP vs. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998
  • Dahyabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
  • Bhikari vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1
  • Attorney General of South Australia vs. Brown, 1960 AC 432

Top

Thangadurai Nadar vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police Tenkasi

Filed Under: Sections 84 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Appellant: Thangadurai Nadar
Respondent: State represented by the Inspector of Police Tenkasi
Citation: MANU/TN/0134/2002; Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 1995 Decided on 11.02.2002 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judges: N. Dhinakar and A. Packiaraj

Facts

Thangadurai Nadar was a mentally ill person and thus had been left in the custody of his brother-in-law (wife’s elder brother). Thangadurai Nadar had two children, one daughter and one son. His brother-in-law used to work in a radio repair shop. On the day of the incident, Thangadurai’s wife and daughter were going for a condolence, when Thangadurai suddenly appeared before his wife and dashed her head against the wall of the nearby house. As a result of this, his wife sustained head injuries and was rushed to the hospital by her son who was informed about what had happened.

Thereafter the police was informed and they registered a case against Thangadurai. In the meanwhile, the wife died. The police arrested Thangadurai and also sent him for mental examination to a doctor. The doctor submitted a certificate of the examination and the police prepared the final report. The case then went to the Trial Court and the Court convicted Thangadurai for the murder of his wife.

The present appeal was then filed on behalf of Thangadurai challenging the order of the Trial Court.

Arguments made on behalf of Thangadurai

The lawyer on behalf of Thangadurai pointed out in his defense that Thangadurai was under treatment for a mental ailment. He argued that the Trial Court had not paid attention to this fact while awarding the sentence.

In Thangadurai’s support, his children also stated that their father had no motive to attack their mother who had been looking after him. They also said that their father was mentally ill. The lawyer also contended that the police inspector too had stated that Thangadurai was being treated for mental disturbance since the last 18 years.

It was further argued that the doctor who had examined Thangadurai after the incident had stated that Thangadurai was suffering from schizophrenia. On the basis of these evidences the lawyer argued that at the time of the act, Thangadurai had not known that what he was doing was against the law. It was thus argued that Thangadurai was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Observations of the Court

The Court stated that the prosecution had not presented the relevant aspects regarding the mental state of Thangadurai including the report submitted by the doctor who had examined him after the incident. The Court held that in view of the evidence Thangadurai had, by the reason of unsoundness of mind, not known the nature of his act and that its was contrary to law. The Court stated that the Trial Judge should have given him the benefit of Section 84 IPC instead of convicting him.

In light of the reasons mentioned above, the Court set aside the sentence imposed on Thangadurai. At the time of the hearing of the case, Thangadurai was in the Central Prison, and the Court directed the State to release him unless he was wanted in connection with some other cases.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84, the Indian Penal Code

Top

Sannatamma vs. State of Karnataka

Filed Under: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Sannatamma
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Citation: 2004 Cri.L.J.2257
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Judges: S.R. Bannurmath and Mohan Santhanagoudar

This is an appeal challenging the order of the Sessions Judge sentencing Sannatamma to rigorous imprisonment for life for the murder of his mother.

Facts

The accused Sannatamma and his brothers Parameshwar and Ravi Kiran were the children of the deceased, Laxmi. Since Sannatamma’s wife and his mother, Laxmi were not on compatible terms, they lived separately. It was alleged that Laxmi had some property in her name and Sannatamma had been pestering her to transfer it in his. The deceased refused to do so as long as she was alive.

One morning Sannatamma came to his mother’s house and was sitting with few neighbours. When she was about to serve tea, he picked up a sickle which was lying nearby and gave a fatal blow on her neck which killed her. Sannatamma was then caught and tied to a tree by his brothers with the help of some neighbors and the jurisdictional police station was informed.

Sannatamma took the defence of insanity and produced a hospital card issued by the Karnataka Institute of Mental Health, Dharwad. The Trial Court however declined to accept the plea of insanity and sentenced Sannatamma to life imprisonment for murdering his mother.

Sannatamma filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of the Trial Court.

Observations of the Court

After examining the evidence of the witnesses and the relevant laws, the Court observed that there was enough indication as to Sannatamma’s poor mental status. Although there was not sufficient and detailed material as to the kind of mental illness, the fact was that, for a number of months Sannatamma had been admitted and treated at the mental hospital.

In addition, immediately after the production of the accused by the Investigating Agency, the Trial Court had felt that the accused exhibited imbalanced behavior and was thus referred for treatment to the Mental Hospital and the treatment continued till the trial began in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge had also noticed this and he too had referred Sannatamma to the Mental Hospital.

Based on the evidence provided by the witnesses, the Court observed that there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Sannatamma had any motive or preparation for the crime. The Court also held that such an act could only have been committed by an insane person (refer to quotes from judgment) and hence deserves the benefit under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court further noted that the Trial Court had come to an incorrect conclusion despite being aware of this fact. Thus on consideration of the entire material it was found that the Trial Court had committed an error in not extending the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code to the accused.

Held:The appeal was allowed and Sannatamma was acquitted of all charges. In addition, the Jail authorities were directed to transfer him to a Mental hospital for observation and treatment.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code

Cases Referred:

  • Dahyabhai vs. state of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563: (1964) 2 Cri LJ 472
  • Gokuldas Gaonkar vs. State (1995) 3 Cur Cir R 189
  • Daniel Mac Noughtons, In re, (1843) 10 C & F 200

Quotes from the Judgment:

“This act of coming to Laxmi’s house without any preparation for the crime including not bringing any weapon, sitting quietly with P.W. 1 and others and while deceased was serving him tea, suddenly picking up a sickle lying nearby and giving a blow coupled with the fact of his mental disturbance earlier and during trial, indicates that this was not an act of a sane person out of malice or any ill-will towards the deceased.” (pp 2260)

Top