9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though, 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. The Trial Court considered the matter within the ambit of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and on the basis of material on record concluded that the Appellant-Accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts by reason of unsoundness of mind and it is highly probable that he was unaware of what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The Trial Court, thus, acquitted the Appellant- Accused against which the State of Sikkim preferred an appeal which stands allowed by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 respectively. 5. Mr. A. Sirajudden learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Accused at the very outset submitted 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ousehold 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 of blood all over his face and neck. The Appellant-Accused had already assaulted her father. She would further depose that after snatching the weapon she hid it under some rod materials but when she looked back, she again saw the Accused with his hand on the neck of the deceased trying to take out the windpipe from the neck of the deceased which was already cut. She separated the Appellant-Accused from the deceased. 11. PW-13 (Geeta Chettri) had arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing PW-1's scream. When she reached the house of the deceased, she saw the Appellant-Accused pulling the deceased by his neck. The statements of both the above witnesses have not been demolished or shaken during the cross-examination. 12. PW-14 (Dr. Siddhant Basnett) examined the deceased when he was brought dead to the Singtam PHC who found the following vis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 was initially examined by the Trial Court on 04.05.2017. During preliminary examination, this witness categorically deposed that going by the case history of the Accused prepared by the Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital, Tadong he had earlier been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder w.e.f. 05.10.2015 to 10.10.2015. As per the opinion of this witness, the Appellant-Accused seemed to have major depressive disorder with psychotic feature. On examination, the Appellant-Accused was found to have partially impaired judgment due to perceptive auditory hallucinations. When this witness again examined before the Trial Court on 11.09.2017 and was subjected to cross-examination he proved the discharge summary of the Appellant-Accused issued by the Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital. He admitted that the medicines pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the Accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the Accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of shall presume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. (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 court would be entitled to acquit the Accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. 21. The above proposition has been reiterated by this Court in Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 718 and Ratan Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1970) 3 SCC 533. 22. In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495, Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC 109 and Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC 66 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
