IMPORTANT POINTS
Driving a vehicle deliberately in a reckless and rash manner and killing and injuring many persons calls for conviction u/s 302 IPC. If the driver has no criminal antecedents and there is possibility of his reform, he should not be awarded death sentence but life imprisonment.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are as follows. The appellant was working as a driver in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation since 08.08.1999 and, at the relevant time, he was working with Swargate S.T. Depot, Pune. On 25.01.2012, the appellant had requested Shashikant Damkale (PW-23), who was Assistant Traffic Controller of Swargate Depot, to change his duty from night out duty to single day duty. After PW-23 declined his request, he quietly walked out of his office and went to S.T. Bus which was standing in the Depot, entered it along with the key which was available with him, started the said bus and hijacked it. He took two rounds in the Bus Depot during which he knocked down and crushed to death 2 to 3 people. When he was asked to stop the bus by the Officers of the S.T. Depot, he took out the S.T. Bus, drove the vehicle on circuitous route for about 14 to 16 kilometers, killed another six people in the process of driving the vehicle in the most reckless manner, grievously injured 36 persons, some of whom are permanently disabled, and damaged the public property by driving his S.T. Vehicle over rickshaws, scooters, cars electric polls until he was finally stopped and apprehended by a Police man who entered the S.T. Bus from one of the windows.

4. It may be mentioned at the outset that insofar as the incident in question is concerned, there is no dispute about the same and further the prosecution was able to prove this incident beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and credible evidence. The entire case set up by the appellant before the courts below as well as in this appeal is that he was a person of unsound mind and did not know as to what he had done and, therefore, he should have been given the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the medical evidence that was produced before the trial court. He has submitted that immediately after the incident in question, when the appellant was apprehended, he was produced for medical examination and examined by four Doctors, three of them were general physicians and one was a psychiatrist. It is submitted that the psychiatrist who had examined the appellant was not produced as a witness by the prosecution during the trial. The learned counsel has also referred to the medical examination conducted by one Dr. S.J. Mahamuni, another psychiatrist in Regional Mental Hospital, Pune, two days after his arrest, i.e., 27.01.2012. Relying upon the said evidence, it is argued that as per this Doctor, at the time of his examination, the appellant was having blunt thoughts, delusion of persecution, delusion of black magic, no guilt/ remorse on the incident and auditory hallucination (making verbal sounds as if somebody is throwing him on the ground and beating him). This evidence, according to the learned counsel, would show that the appellant was not in a normal state of mind when the incident took place.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, no doubt, the burden was on the appellant to prove his insanity by producing evidence in accordance with Section 84 of the IPC. However, the learned counsel argues, even when the evidence has been brought, which throws some doubts that the accused is insane, the ultimate burden which is always upon the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt which the prosecution has not discharged in this case. In support of this proposition, he has referred to the judgment of this Court in Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361 and, in particular, the following discussion therefrom:

"The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable d