Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Rupesh Manger (Thapa) – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2022
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 84 – Murder of Grandfather – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Mental insanity of accused – Standard of proof to prove lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt’ – Distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity – Court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity – Role of court is to find remedial measures and do complete justice – Apart from medical evidence, abnormal/insane behaviour of appellant-accused at the time of assault and immediately thereafter is worth notice – Action of appellant-accused was weird and abnormal, indicative of fact that he was suffering from insanity at the time of incident – Judgment of acquittal can be reversed by Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence – If conclusion of Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, Appellate Court should not disturb findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict accused – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court affirmed. (Paras 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
These appeals assail judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 passed by High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2020 whereby High Court has reversed the order of acquittal of Trial Court dated 30.10.2018 and convicted appellant-accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
In light of evidence discussed by Trial Court including medical evidence about mental illness of appellant-accused and his abnormal behaviour at the time of occurrence, it does not appear that view taken by Trial Court was perverse or that it was based on without any evidence. High Court erred in setting aside judgment of acquittal rendered by Trial Court.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These appeals would call in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2020 whereby the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal of the Trial Court dated 30.10.2018 and convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant-accused committed murder of his grandfather Krishna Bahadur Rai (hereinafter called ‘deceased’). An FIR was lodged to the said effect by Reeta Rai (PW-1), daughter of the deceased informing the police that her father (deceased) aged 81 years who was living with her had been murdered with a sharp-edged weapon (Patang).
3. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant-accused for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC and, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. However, even before the commencement of trial the appellant-accused raised a plea of insanity. Thereafter, he was referred to the Psychiatric Unit of the STNM Hospital, Gangtok for examination of his mental state which was conducted by Dr. Netra Thapa (CW-1), Consultant Neuro Psychiatrist. Although, 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 IPC 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 re-appreciation of evidence. He further submitted that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the fact of acquittal of the accused under the criminal jurisprudence and it is a well settled law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced, in that case, the one favourable to the accused, may be adopted by the court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Abdul Mannan, (2011) 8 SCC 65.
6. Learned senior counsel next submitted that the appellant-accused was a person of unsound mind within the ambit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) at the time of the incident. The fact of lunacy of a person which prevented him from knowing the nature of his act must be considered from his past, present and future conduct. The only criteria to prove such lunacy is “reasonable doubt” and this criterion is well approved by this Court in the case of Devidas Loka Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 718.
7. Per contra, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the High Court after careful examination of the medical records of the appellant-accused and other material placed on record rightly came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant-accused did not fall within the exception created by Section 84 of IPC.
8. After he
Mental insanity of accused – Standard of proof to prove lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt’ – Distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity – Court is concerned with....
If accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at time he committed offence, evidence placed before Court by accused or by prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in mind of Co....
Point of Law : Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all releva....
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for insanity lies with the accused, but a history of mental illness can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
The appellant failed to prove legal insanity at the time of the incident, and thus was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
The failure to assess the appellant's mental fitness before trial constituted a serious procedural irregularity, necessitating the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that the accused's defense of insanity under Section 84 IPC was not established due to insufficient evidence of mental imbalance at the time of the offense.
The court established that a valid plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC can overturn a conviction if supported by credible medical evidence.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proof for the plea of insanity is on the defence to establish it by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
