The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC since the accused was found fit to stand trial, and the defense of unsoundness of mind was not substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C. No.1/2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, has preferred this appeal.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The appellant was tried in S.C. No.1/2018 on the charge that on 28.06.2017 at 7:30 a.m., when his father- Krishnappa declined to yield to his demand for pay money for alcoholism, appellant chased his father from the kitchen of the house up to the front yard of the house of PW6-Lakshmibai and in front of her house, he assaulted on the head of the victim multiple times with MO1/iron rod and committed his murder.

4. On conducting the trial relying on the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs.2 to 4,6 and 10 and the evidence on record, Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused.

Submissions of Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned Counsel for appellant:

5. Though the case is based on eyewitnesses’ evidence, the evidence of eyewitnesses and other material on record show that the appellant/accused was suffering from mental ill-health and the alleged act was committed when he was not in sound state of mind. Further, despite such evidence, the trial court did not examine whether the appellant/accused was in a position to take up the trial and the requirement of following Section 328 Cr.P.C. Therefore the entire trial and consequential impugned judgment and order are unsustainable. Alternatively, evidence and record shows that the appellant has committed the alleged offence when he was not able to take informed decision. Hence at the most, act committed may be covered under Section 304 of IPC. The appellant is in judicial custody since 2017. Therefore, reducing conviction from Section 302 to 304 IPC and restricting the period of sentence for the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, he be released. In support of his submission, he relies judgment in Chunni Bai Vs State of Chghattisgarh , 2025 INSC 577 .

Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II along with Smt. Sowmya.R, learned HCGP:

6. Benefit of Section 84 of IPC is available only where the accused had an unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence or he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. But the evidence on record shows that the accused was on treatment and he had no such mental unsoundness at the time of the commission of the offence. Further, the report of NIMHANS summoned by this Court shows that at the time of the incident, the accused had no such mental health conditions. Further his irritability or loss of temperament, if any, was due to his alcohol addiction. The mother of the appellant/accused himself is an eyewitness. She has categorically stated about the intention of the accused in committing the murder of his father. Thus, there is no merit in the contention that either at the time of commission of the offence or during the trial the appellant was of unsound mind and he was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC or Section 328 Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no merit in the case. Hence appeal liable to be dismissed. As reported by the NIMHANS authorities, r