The burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of sanity under section 84 of the Penal Code is not as heavy as that on the prosecution but equivalent to that which lies on a party in a civil proceeding.

JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This appeal by the original accused questions the legality and validity of the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 150 of 1979, the conviction being for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code with a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed in that behalf.

2. The accused Balu Ganpat Koshire was married to Mira some time in 1973. Of the said marriage, the couple had a son Sandip who was four years old at the time of the incident. The incident constituting the subject matter of the present prosecution occurred in the evening at about 7 O'clock on 26th September, 1979 in the house of the accused. In the early part of the very day, the accused, his wife Mira and their son Sandip had returned from about a month's residence at Vani at the house of Hirabai, the sister of the accused. Just prior to the occurrence in question, wife Mira and son Sandip were sitting in their field near their house in the company of one Devki Dalvi and others, when the accused went there, took his wife Mira to their house with Sandip following them. Within a short time Devki heard cries of Mira. She went to the house of the accused, knocked at the door but there was no response. In the meanwhile, some young boys, who were going by the way, climbed the roof of the house at the request of Devki and effected an entry and opened the door from outside. The accused went out with only a blood-stained pyjama. In the meanwhile, Nanyabai, mother of the accused, also came there. Devki and Nanyabai were shocked to find Mira and Sandip lying inside the house in a pool of blood with injuries on their persons. Dr. Pawar, a relation of the family, also came there. He conveyed the information telephonically to the police station. An offence of murder was registered against the accused. He was arrested and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheeted and committed to stand his trial before the Sessions Court, Nasik, for the offence of murder.

3. The accused admitted the incident but pleaded insanity and claimed protection of section 84 of the Penal Code. The learned trial Judge held that the deaths of Mira and Sandip were homicidal. This fact and finding is not disputed in this appeal. It was further held that the accused had committed the murders. His plea of insanity was negatived and he was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal.

4. In support of the appeal, we have heard Mr. C.A. Phadkar, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused . The State is represented by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. M.D. Gangakhedkar.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Phadkar took us through the record of the case including evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also defence witnesses who in this case are as many as seven and contended that the impugned conviction cannot, for more than one reason, be sustained. The trial itself was, according to the learned Counsel, not legal and valid. Assuming the same to be valid, the accused even so was entitled to the protection of section 84 of the Penal Code. His submission in this context was that more than sufficient reliable and cogent evidence had been placed before the Court, on the basis whereof fair and reasonable inference would be that the accused had discharged the burden that lay on him thus creating a dent in the prosecution case which consequently cannot be said to have been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. M.D. Gangakhedkar sought to repel these contentions.

6. Now, on 18th January, 1980 when the charge was framed against the accused, he was not represented by any Advocate, not even a State Advocate. Only subsequently, an Advocate was appointed at State expense. Some days thereafter the accused engaged his own Advocate who filed an application (Exhibit 5) under section 325 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document