SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1069

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Uttam Nandram Somwanshi - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2143 OF 2009
Decided On : 13-01-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rohit Minocha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar and Arpit Rai, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's claim of unsoundness of mind due to schizophrenia ailment was not supported by evidence, and his actions immediately after the incident contradicted his claim, leading to the denial of the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC.

Headnote:

unsoundness of mind - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302 and 84 - Accused claimed unsoundness of mind due to schizophrenia ailment - Evidence showed no signs of unsoundness of mind before or after the incident - Accused performed Pooja and prepared tea immediately after the incident - Accused not entitled to benefit of Section 84 of IPC

Fact of the Case:

Accused claimed unsoundness of mind due to schizophrenia ailment after being charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Evidence showed no signs of unsoundness of mind before or after the incident. Accused performed Pooja and prepared tea immediately after the incident.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench of the High Court held the accused guilty for the offence of murder and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC due to unsoundness of mind caused by schizophrenia ailment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was no evidence of unsoundness of mind before or after the incident, and the accused's actions immediately after the incident contradicted his claim of unsoundness of mind.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court were upheld.

NUTSHELL

Accused offering prayers and preparing tea after committing murder - His claim that he was of unsound mind cannot accepted through some years back accused was a patient schizophrenia ailment.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302 and 84 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 84 and 302 Charge of murder against accused - Accused taking defence of unsoundness of mind - Evidence showed that some years back accused was patient schizophrenia ailment - No evidence that ailment elapsed - Evidence showed that on day of occurrence there were no signs of unsoundness of mind of the accused before or after the incidence - Evidence further showed that immediately after the incident the accused performed Pooja and also prepared tea - Accused not entitled to benefit of Section 84 of IPC. [Paras 8 and 9]

ORDER :

1. The divergent finding of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2006 dated 22.07.2008 in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srirampur in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2003 in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) holding the accused/appellant herein guilty for the offence of murder and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months, is under challenge before this Court in this appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant invited our attention to the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge wherein he has, after proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record, particularly the defence evidence of Dr. M.M. Sahastrabuddhe, DW-1 (Psycatrix), who was examined on behalf of the accused as defence witness, in his evidence, deposed that the accused was suffering from Schizophrenia, which, according to him, is a serious type of mental disorder caused due to chemical changes in the limping system of the brain. He further deposed that during the treatment from 1992 to 1997 the said illness of the appellant got impaired. The Doctor opined that there can be sudden variations in the patients behaviour, the capacity of judgment in schizophrenic attack of such patient gets impaired. The Doctor also opined that such a patient can be cured and further stated, in his evidence, that after a gap of some period it can be relapsed. He further stated that in such attack, patient may commit any gruesome offence. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the said evidence, also placed reliance upon the material retrieved from the internet with regard to the ailment of schizophrenia, wherein it is opined by the expert doctor as follows:

"Normal versus Abnormal -

At times, normal individuals may feel, think, or act in ways that resemble schizophrenia. Normal people may sometimes be unable to "think straight." They may become extremely anxious, for example, when speaking in front of groups and may feel confused, be unable to pull their thoughts together, and forget what they had intended to say. This is not schizophrenia. At the same time, people with schizophrenia do not always act abnormally. Indeed, some people with the illness can appear completely normal and be perfectly responsible, even while they experience hallucinations or delusions. An individuals behaviour may change over time, becoming bizarre if medication is stopped and returning closer to normal when receiving appropriate treatment."

3. Hence, how long should people with Schizophrenia take anti-psychotic drugs, the following opinion is rendered by the expert Doctor.

"How Long Should People With Schizophrenia Take Antipsychotic Drugs? Antipsychotic medications reduce the risk of future psychotic episodes in patients who have recovered from an acute episode. Even with continued drug treatment, some people who have r







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top