2022 (8) TMI 305 - HC - Indian Laws

Murder - assault of Phuliabai (mother of Appellant and wife of Complainant) twice by lathi - Appellant has not challenged the findings that the deceased Phuliya bai died a homicidal death, and also not challenged the findings that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but submitted that the Appellant was lunatic at the time of incident, and his treatment was also done during the pendency of the Trial, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC - HELD THAT - Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of crime committed by a person with mental illness. Unsoundness of mind has not been defined in IPC. Even insanity is not exempted under Section 84 of IPC. Every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. There is a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. In order to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC, the accused must prove legal insanity, and not medical insanity. Any person, who is suffering from any kind of mental weakness is called medical insanity, however legal insanity means, person suffering from mental illness should also have a loss of reasoning power - mere abnormality of mind or compulsive behavior is not sufficient to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC. In the present case, the Appellant had given repeated blows on the head of his mother Phuliya Bai and had also assaulted his father/complainant repeatedly on his head, leg, shoulder etc. Phuliya Bai lost her control. The Appellant was arrested from the bus stand with lathi. At the time of arrest, the arresting officer, did not notice any mental illness. Even the Trial Court did not notice any mental illness on the date when he was produced for the first time. Even assuming that he was suffering from psychosis, then it is clear that it was not in continuity but was in intervals. Therefore, the moot question is that whether the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident or not? - The incident took place on 26-3-2010 at 1 00 P.M. The Appellant was arrested on 27-3-2012 at 17 30 i.e., on the next day. No mental unsoundness was noticed by Gahlaut Semliya (P.W. 9),who had arrested the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant was arrested on the next day, therefore, it is clear that after committing the offence, he absconded. Thus, it is clear that he was able to understand the gravity of his act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant was of unsound mind at the time of incident. This Court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 302 and 307 of IPC is upheld - So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence is Life Imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court doesnot call for any interference. The Appeal fails and is hereby Dismissed .

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Homicidal nature of the death of Phuliya Bai.
2. Injuries sustained by the complainant, Daujaram.
3. Identification of the Appellant as the perpetrator.
4. Appellant's mental condition and the applicability of Section 84 IPC (insanity defense).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Homicidal Nature of the Death of Phuliya Bai:
- The court considered the post-mortem report by Dr. Shambhudayal Barua, which detailed severe injuries on Phuliya Bai's head and concluded that the cause of death was coma due to excessive injury over the head and brain, indicating a homicidal nature. The court rejected the defense's suggestion that the injuries could have been due to a fall, as there was no evidence to support this claim.

2. Injuries Sustained by the Complainant, Daujaram:
- Dr. A.P. Singh examined Daujaram and found multiple injuries, including lacerated wounds and swelling on various parts of his body. The court confirmed that Daujaram sustained these injuries during the incident, despite the defense's suggestion that they could have been caused by a fall or dashing against a wall.

3. Identification of the Appellant as the Perpetrator:
- Witness testimonies from Daujaram, Asha Bai, and other witnesses confirmed that the Appellant assaulted Phuliya Bai and Daujaram. Despite some witnesses turning hostile, the consistent testimonies of key witnesses and the seizure of the lathi from the Appellant supported the prosecution's case.

4. Appellant's Mental Condition and the Applicability of Section 84 IPC:
- The Appellant claimed insanity at the time of the incident, seeking the benefit of Section 84 IPC. The court examined the legal standards for insanity, emphasizing that the accused must prove they were incapable of knowing the nature of their act or that it was wrong or contrary to law at the time of the offense.
- The court noted that while the Appellant had a history of mental illness and was treated for psychosis, there was no continuous effect of the illness. The Appellant's behavior during and after the incident, including absconding and being coherent when produced in court, indicated he understood the gravity of his actions.
- The court concluded that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for legal insanity under Section 84 IPC, as he failed to prove he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act at the time of the incident.

Conclusion:
- The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, affirming the life imprisonment and additional sentences imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to serve the remaining jail sentence.