2020 (8) TMI 909 - SC - Indian Laws

Robery and attempt to murder - Recovery of prohibited buttondar knife from the appellant and his co-accused - conviction under Section 394 of IPC - HELD THAT - Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value. In order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual s ability to distinguish right from wrong - Further, it must be established that the accused was afflicted by such disability particularly at the time of the crime and that but for such impairment, the crime would not have been committed. The reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving these defences are thus well reasoned and unimpeachable. Regardless thereto and given the ingrained principles of our criminal law jurisprudence which mandates that substantive justice triumph limitations of procedure, this Court on 22.07.2020 tried to enquire into the mental health of the appellant, by requesting the learned Additional Solicitor General to get the appellant mentally examined. However, notwithstanding such efforts, the appellant who had been granted bail by this Court earlier, is untraceable. Given such inability of the appellant to establish juvenility or insanity, raise any doubt regarding guilt; and considering the detailed reasons accorded by the High Court, the reliable testimony of twelve witnesses as well as the leniency shown in sentencing, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order(s) - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Section 394 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt - Reduction of sentence by High Court - Arguments of lack of proof by the prosecution, delay in lodging FIR, juvenility, and insanity raised.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against a conviction under Section 394 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court had reduced the sentence from seven to two years for the appellant. The defense argued lack of proof by the prosecution, delay in lodging the FIR, juvenility, and insanity.
2. The prosecution's case was based on the victim-complainant being assaulted and robbed by the appellant and two others armed with a knife and revolver. The police apprehended the accused with incriminating evidence, and witnesses testified against them.
3. The trial Court found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies consistent and credible, leading to the conviction of all three accused for robbery with grievous hurt. The High Court reduced the sentence for the present appellant, considering various factors.
4. The defense raised arguments challenging the prosecution's evidence, including lack of independent witnesses, delay in FIR, and inconsistencies in the complainant's statements. They also raised issues of juvenility and insanity.
5. The Courts emphasized the importance of not re-evaluating evidence routinely in criminal cases and highlighted the credibility of witnesses. The delay in FIR registration was explained, and pleas of juvenility and insanity were deemed belated and unsubstantiated.
6. The High Court's reasoning on dismissing the defenses of juvenility and insanity was found to be well-founded. Efforts were made to examine the appellant's mental health, but he remained untraceable, leading to the conclusion that the pleas were not genuine.
7. Considering the lack of evidence supporting juvenility or insanity, the consistent witness testimonies, and the leniency shown in sentencing, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, including the legal arguments, evidentiary considerations, and the final decision of the Supreme Court.