9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant-Accused committed murder of his grandfather Krishna Bahadur Rai (hereinafter called 'deceased'). An FIR was lodged to the said effect by Reeta Rai (PW-1), daughter of the deceased informing the police that her father (deceased) aged 81 years who was living with her had been murdered with a sharp-edged weapon (Patang). 3. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the Appellant-Accused for committing offence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. However, even before the commencement of trial the Appellant-Accused raised a plea of insanity. Thereafter, he was referred to the Psychiatric Unit of the STNM Hospital, Gangtok for examination of his mental state which was conducted by Dr. Netra Thapa (CW-1), Consultant Neuro Psychiatrist. Although, the defence of insanity has not been expressly pleaded by the Appellant-Accused in his examination Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein he would mainly claim ignorance about the occurrence of the incident; at the same time, denying that he had attacked his grand father (deceased). 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material placed on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, whether the case of the Appellant-Accused falls within the exception Under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code or not. 9. The fact that the Appellant had committed murder of the deceased have been found established concurrently by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, therefore, we would discuss the evidence in this regard very briefly. 10. PW-1 (Reeta Rai) is the daughter of the deceased and the aunt of the Appellant-Accused as well. She lodged the FIR and has categorically deposed that the deceased used to stay in her house. The deceased had gone to celebrate Dussehra in the house of her elder sister and returned to her house at village Rolep on 15.10.2016 along with the Appellant-Accused. Around 10.00 a.m. she had gone to a nearby water stream for washing the household utensils and heard someone saying 'aaya aaya' and also heard some strange sound such as 'chyak chyak'. She rushed back to her house and saw the Appellant-Accused aiming the sharp-edged weapon towards the deceased. After struggling with the Accused she snatched the weapon from him but saw the deceased with pool ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-Accused admitted during his cross-examination that the Appellant-Accused was studying in Dehradun and that he was brought back to Sikkim as he was suffering from mental illness. PW-1 also admits this fact. However, she did not know whether the Appellant-Accused had been brought back from Dehradun to Sikkim on account of his mental illness. PW-7 (Bikash Rai) and PW-8 (Dal Bahadur Rai) also admit that they had heard about the Appellant-Accused being brought back to Sikkim due to some sickness. DW-1 (mother of the Accused) speaks about her son's mental illness. According to this witness, in the year 2015, one of his friends telephoned her that the Appellant-Accused had fallen ill, and he is fighting with his friends. He was, accordingly, brought back to Sikkim. He was taken to some quakes/spiritual healers for treatment as also to Lama/Priest but to no avail. Thereafter he was taken to the Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital for his treatment by a psychiatrist. After a week in the hospital, he was brought back, and he was advised to continuously take medicines for keeping his mental status healthy. This evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of CW-1 (Dr. Netra Thapa) who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out the windpipe from the neck of the deceased which was already cut. This action of the Appellant-Accused was weird and abnormal. This is clearly indicative of the fact that he was suffering from insanity at the time of incident. 19. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that: 84. Act of a person of unsound mind-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 20. It is settled that the standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only 'reasonable doubt'. For this, we may profitably refer to a judgment of this Court in "Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat (1964) 7 SCR 361" wherein, referring to Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and the Rule of evidence as contained in Sections 4, 101 and 105 of the Evidence Act this Court held thus: It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an Accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the Accused to make out his defence of insanity... The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (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) 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 rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the Accused was not able to establish conclusively 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 cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has reversed the judgment of acquittal upon appeal preferred by the State. It is settled that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the Accused. See State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan (supra). 25. In the case at hand, the High Court had reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellant mainly on reappreciation of evidence by holding that the Trial Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, without even recording a finding that the Trial Court's finding is perverse. 26. In the light of the evidence discussed by the Trial Court including the medical evidence about the mental illness of the Appellant-Accused and his abnormal behaviour at the time of occurrence, it does not appear that the view taken by the Trial Court was perverse or that it was based on without any evidence. We are, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
