2018 (7) TMI 2049 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction u/s 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code - appellant was of unsound mind or not - HELD THAT - The appellant has been able to create sufficient doubt in our mind that he is entitled to the benefit of the exception under section 84 I.P.C. because of the preponderance of his medical condition at the time of occurrence, as revealed from the materials and evidence on record. The prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. The appeal is allowed. He is directed to be released from custody unless wanted in any other case. It is considered necessary to give further directions under Section 335 or 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be, so that the appellant is not exposed to vagaries and receives proper care and support befitting his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2. Defence of unsoundness of mind
3. Evaluation of evidence and medical reports
4. Legal principles regarding the burden of proof and presumption of sanity
5. Appellate court's duty to reappraise evidence

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 (murder) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC. The conviction was based on the appellant's actions on 26.09.2006, where he assaulted multiple individuals with a sickle, resulting in injuries and the death of Harish Chandra Chauhan. The appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended by villagers and handed over to the police.

2. Defence of Unsoundness of Mind:
The appellant's primary defence was that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. The trial court rejected this defence, citing insufficient evidence and relying on the testimony of Dr. Sagar Srikant Chiddalwar (C.W.1), who stated that the appellant was mentally fit to face trial. The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence of unsoundness of mind was not properly appreciated and that the appellant's poor family background made it difficult to maintain medical records. The defence witnesses testified that the appellant was under treatment for mental illness, and there was sufficient evidence to suggest a plausible defence under Section 84 of the IPC.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Medical Reports:
The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimony of police Sub-Inspector Chandusingh Mohansingh Chavan (P.W.14) and medical reports. The appellant was hospitalized immediately after the assault and received treatment for mental illness. The trial court records indicated multiple medical visits and the administration of antipsychotic drugs. The treating doctor opined that the appellant was a chronic psychotic patient requiring continuous treatment. The court found that the prosecution had deliberately withheld relevant evidence regarding the appellant's mental condition, creating reasonable doubt about his sanity at the time of the offence.

4. Legal Principles Regarding the Burden of Proof and Presumption of Sanity:
The court reiterated the legal principles regarding the burden of proof in cases involving the plea of insanity. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. The accused can rebut the presumption of sanity by presenting relevant evidence, but the burden of proof on the accused is lower than that on the prosecution. The court referred to precedents, including Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat and Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand, to emphasize that the accused only needs to establish his defence on a preponderance of probability.

5. Appellate Court's Duty to Reappraise Evidence:
The court highlighted the appellate court's duty to reappraise evidence in criminal appeals. It criticized the trial and appellate courts for failing to properly consider the evidence of the appellant's mental condition. The trial judge's reliance on the appellant's present demeanor in court, without considering the medication provided during custody, was deemed erroneous. The appellate court also failed to delve into the records adequately, as required by law.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant had created sufficient doubt regarding his mental condition at the time of the offence, entitling him to the benefit of the exception under Section 84 IPC. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released from custody unless wanted in any other case. The court also issued directions to ensure the appellant receives proper care and support, in line with his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

← Previous Next →