IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction based on an admission of guilt is valid unless there is clear evidence of unsoundness of mind affecting the accused's capacity to understand the nature of the act.

ORDER :

V. Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 06.08.2008 in G.S.C.No.112 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, convicted the accused, on his admission, for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 18.08.2008 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1667 of 2008.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :

(i). On 19.05.2006, when the de facto complainant attending bundo-bust duty at Steel Plant, Vishakapatnam, the accused with an intention to kill him stabbed with a knife on the abdomen, resulted, he sustained injury to the left armpit and also near left wrist. Then the accused escaped from the spot on his motorcycle.

(ii). Based on the complaint of de facto complainant, Gajuwaka police register a case in Cr.No.262 of 2006 for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, and committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as G.S.C.No.112 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, on admission of accused, under Section 240(2) Cr.P.C. examination, convicted him for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

6. Heard Sri Md. Ismail, learned counsel representing Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in convicting the petitioner on admission by the Trial Court?”

8. Sri Md. Ismail, learned counsel representing Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence; that the judgment of the trail Court itself shows that the accused mental condition was not good, thereby, the conviction passed against the accused on the admission is liable to the set aside.

9. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the trail court on the categorical admission made by the accused at the time of initial examination itself, convicted him for the said offence, as such, there are no grounds urged by the petitioner to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. In support of the above contention, he relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 SCC 372.

10. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that on the very first examination of the accused, under Section 240(2) CR.P.C., he admitted the guilt by stating that “as he was not in good mental condition, he stabbed the complainant underneath the stomach with an intention to kill him.” On the said admission, the trial Court convicted him for the said offence.

11. Now, it is relevant to refer the pronouncement of Apex Court, which is relied upon by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, in Prem Singh case (referred to supra), wherein at paragraph Nos.71 to 76 held as follows :

71. In the relied upon passage in the decision of Gujarat High Court cited on behalf of the appellant in case of Manjuben (supra)