IMPORTANT POINTS
Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of courts below. But this does not preclude it from appraising evidence in appropriate cases in the interest of justice.
Insanity at the time of commission of offence can be collated from evidence of conduct which preceded, attended and followed the crime.
In case of unsoundness of mind, defence on preponderance of probability is enough. Burden of proof then shifts on prosecution to explain why the plea for unsoundness of mind taken by the accused was untenable.

JUDGMENT :

Navin Sinha, J.

The appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rejecting his defence that he was of unsound mind.

2. In the morning of 26.09.2006, the appellant suddenly picked up a sickle from the shop floor of the iron smith and attempted to assault Gulab Pawar (P.W.11), but which injured Santosh Jadhav (P.W.5) on the jaw and cheek and gave a further blow on his shoulder. The same day, he later assaulted Ulhas Rathor (P.W.3) on his back and neck and rained blows on the back and stomach of the deceased Harish Chandra Chauhan, when the latter tried to intervene. The appellant then tried to flee, throwing the sickle enroute, when he was apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police.

3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejected the defence plea for unsoundness of mind, citing insufficient evidence relying on the evidence of Dr. Sagar Srikant Chiddalwar (C.W.1) that the appellant was not mentally sick and fit to face trial. The subsequent conduct of the appellant while in custody, his demeanour during the trial, were further relied upon to conclude that the appellant was conscious of his wrongful acts which were deliberate in nature, evident from the repeated assaults and running away from the place of occurrence after throwing the sickle. The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

4. Ms. Aparna Jha appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that in absence of any mens rea, conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. was unsustainable, relying upon Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, 1964 (7) SCR 361. It was next contended that the evidence of Mankarna Chavan (D.W.1) and Gograbai Rathod (D.W.2), with regard to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant has not been properly appreciated and wrongly rejected as insufficient. The appellant belonged to a very poor family and they could not be expected to keep his medical records and prescriptions meticulously. The defence witnesses had deposed that the appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Kelkar at Akola. There existed sufficient evidence for a plausible defence for unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 105 of the Evidence Act on a preponderance of the probability. The prosecution failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal, for which reliance was placed on Elavarasan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 (7) SCC 110. The conviction was, therefore, unjustified and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

5. Learned counsel for the State, Shri Katneshwarkar, opposing the appeal, submitted that the appellant had failed to prima facie establish a case for unsoundness of mind on probability. The trial judge had taken adequate precautions in calling for medical reports from time to time and satisfying himself with regard to the ability of the appellant to defend himself quite apart from also noticing his demeanour in court. The conduct of the appellant in making repeated assaults, running away from the place of occurrence, throwing the sickle on the way, were all sufficient to establish the commission of the offence knowingly by him, incompatible with the defence of unsoundness of mind.

6. We have considered the respective submissions. Normally, this Court is reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of facts by two courts, under Article 136 of the Constitution, as also observed in Deepak Kumar vs. Ravi Virmani and another, 2002 (2) SCC 737. But this does not preclude it in appropriate cases to reappraise evidence in the interest of justice, if it entertains any doubt about the nature of evidence and its appreciation or non-appreciation. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, and much will depend on the concept of justice in the facts of a case, coupled with the nature of acceptable evidence on record.

7. The prosecution, including the injured witnesses, undoubtedly denied that the appellant was of unsound mind. But the evidence