Back
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
Madusudan @ Madusudan Raje Urs
Versus
State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2007
Decided on : 07-06-2010
Mental Illness - Criminal Liability - IPC 436, 307, 302 - The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The accused, suffering from epilepsy and mental illness, was acquitted of the charges under Sections 436, 307, and 302 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone in custody.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 436, 307, and 302 IPC for setting fire to tobacco and causing burn injuries resulting in death. The appellant claimed to be mentally unsound at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused, suffering from mental illness, did not have the intention to commit murder. The court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 436, 307, and 302 IPC and sentenced him to the period already undergone in custody.
Issues: 1) Whether the accused was mentally unsound at the time of the incident, justifying an order of acquittal under Section 84 of IPC. 2) Whether the act of the accused can be brought under Section 285, 304A, or 304 Part II of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused, suffering from epilepsy and mental illness, was acquitted of the charges under Sections 436, 307, and 302 IPC. The court found that the accused had no intention to commit murder and held that the case fell under Part-II of Section 304 IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone in custody. The appellant was set at liberty forthwith.
Key Points: - (!) The court held that Section 84 IPC cannot be pressed into service to acquit a person solely based on mental illness absent sufficient medical evidence. - (!) The acts did not fit Section 285 (mischief by fire) or Section 304A (rash or negligent act causing death); the case fell under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent to murder. - (!) The appeal was allowed in part; substituted conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone in custody, considering epilepsy and mental illness. - (!) Dying declaration Ex.P18 and complaint Ex.P1 supported that there was no intentional murder by setting fire on the deceased, influencing the Part-II 304 determination. - (!) The trial court’s conclusion that the accused did not have intention to murder, given the circumstances, contributed to the Part-II finding. - (!) Medical evidence from NIMHANS was considered but not sufficient to prove mental unsoundness; the court found that Section 84 could not be invoked. - (!) The evidence showed the accused poured petrol and involved in setting fire, but there was no proven intent to kill the specific victims. - (!) The accused had been in custody since 27.9.2005 and was set at liberty after substitution to 304 Part-II. - (!) The case involved multiple witnesses (PW1–PW7, etc.) and documentary exhibits (Ex.P1–P21) and MOs (Mo.1–Mo.7) as part of the evidence. - (!) The matter addresses whether the accused’s mental condition at the time absolves him or reduces liability for homicide by ostensibly non-intentional act.
K.L. Manjunath, J: Questioning the legality and correctness of the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court-III, Mysore, dated 5th September 2006 in S.C.14/2006 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 307 and 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a find of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 436, to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC., and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC., the present appeal is filed.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused is the son of CW2 M.N. Gayatrammanni and the brother of PW3 Subramanya Raje Urs. On 26.9.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused started quarrelling with his mother and brother inside the house situated in Bettada Thunga village within the jurisdiction of Bettadapura police station in connection with his share in the tobacco grown by the family. PW.3 and his mother Gayatrammanni – CW.2 refused to give him any share in the tobacco on the ground that, the accused is getting income from his shop. As a result of this the accused got angry with his mother and brother and set fire to the tobacco stacked inside the house. On seeing the fire, the neighbours namely, PW.1, Chikke Urs, his cousin deceased Malla Raje Urs and others rushed into house of the accused and tried to pacify the quarrel. The accused on seeing Chikke Urs and deceased Malla Raje Urs, strted saying that they always support his mother and brother and saying so, he threw petrol on them. Since Malla Raje Urs was soaked with petrol which is a highly inflammable substance and since he was standing very close to the flame, he caught fire and sustained severe burn injuries on both hands, chest and back and he ran away from the house. At the first instance, he was treated in Bettadapura Hospital, then he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore, where he succumbed to the injuries at about 12.45 noon on 1.10.2005. PW1 Chikke Raje Urs who had also sustained burn injuries lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 on 27.9.2005 at about 3.15 p.m. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1 Chikke urs, the case in Cr.No.121/05 was registered for offences punishable under sections 326 & 427 of IPC and the FIR was sent to the Court as per Ex.P16. The dying declaration of Malla Raje Urs was recorded on 29.9.2005 in K.R.Hospital, Mysore as per ExP.18. After the receipt of death Memo, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added. Thereafter, I.O. held inquest over the dead body and subjected it to P.M. examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for offences punishable under Sections 436, 307 and 302 IPC. The accused was arrested on 27.9.2005 and has been in custody from the date of his arrest. After the committal of the case, before the Sessions Court, the accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Since the accused had no means to engage a Counsel of his choice, Standing Counsel was appointed. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 22 and Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 7 and on behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 to D5 were marked.
4. The Fast Track court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties formulated the following points for its consideration: 1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 26.9.2005 at 8.30 p.m., in the house of CW 2, Gayathrammanni, at Bettadathunga Village, within the
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
