9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1293 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - Scope of exception Under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code or not - issue of insanity - reversal of order of acquittal - HELD THAT - 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 - Basing upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-13 and the medical evidence adduced, it is fully proved that the Appellant-Accused had attacked the deceased with sharp-edged weapon causing his death. Issue of insanity - HELD THAT - It is settled that the standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only 'reasonable doubt' - In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand 2011 (1) TMI 1586 - SUPREME COURT , HARI SINGH GOND VERSUS STATE OF M.P. 2008 (8) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT and Bapu v. State of Rajasthan 2007 (6) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT this Court has held that an Accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act Under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Since the term insanity or unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Penal Code, it carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. 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 - 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. 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 - the High Court erred in setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. The Appellant-Accused of the charge Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code acquitted - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the High Court's judgment reversing the acquittal. 2. Applicability of the insanity defense under Section 84 IPC. Summary: Issue 1: Legality and Validity of High Court's Judgment Reversing Acquittal The Supreme Court examined the legality and validity of the High Court's judgment dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022, which reversed the Trial Court's acquittal dated 30.10.2018 and convicted the Appellant-Accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court's decision was challenged on the grounds that an appellate court can only reverse an acquittal if there is perversity, not merely by reappreciating evidence. The Supreme Court referenced the principle that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused should be adopted, as upheld in State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan (2011) 8 SCC 65. Issue 2: Applicability of Insanity Defense under Section 84 IPC The Appellant-Accused claimed insanity at the time of the incident. The Trial Court had acquitted him under Section 84 IPC, concluding he was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts due to unsoundness of mind. The High Court, however, convicted him, stating the case did not fall within the exception of Section 84 IPC. The Supreme Court reviewed evidence, including testimonies and medical records, showing the Appellant-Accused had a history of mental illness and exhibited abnormal behavior during the incident. Evidence Reviewed: - Testimonies: PW-1 (Reeta Rai) and PW-13 (Geeta Chettri) provided eyewitness accounts of the incident, describing the Appellant-Accused's violent actions and subsequent abnormal behavior. - Medical Evidence: PW-14 (Dr. Siddhant Basnett) and PW-15 (Dr. O.T. Lepcha) provided medical reports detailing the injuries on the deceased. CW-1 (Dr. Netra Thapa) confirmed the Appellant-Accused's history of psychotic disorders and impaired judgment. - Behavioral Evidence: Testimonies indicated the Appellant-Accused's erratic behavior, such as attempting to extract the windpipe from the deceased's neck and not fleeing the scene. Legal Principles: The Supreme Court reiterated that the standard of proof for insanity is "reasonable doubt" (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, 1964). The burden of proving insanity lies on the accused, but it need only meet the standard of a "prudent man." Legal insanity, not medical insanity, is the relevant standard (Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2011). Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court's view was not perverse and was based on substantial evidence. The High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal without establishing perversity in the Trial Court's findings. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstated the Trial Court's acquittal, and ordered the Appellant-Accused to be set at liberty.
|
