Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
DEEPAK BAPURAO YEDAGE - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.113 OF 2007
Decided on : 7.9.2015.
[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Section 84 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 105 Plea of insanity Burden to prove. Where question relating to plea of insanity arises, it required to be proved by accused in view of provisions of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. The burden to prove that an accused is of unsound mind and as a result thereof he is incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of his act is on the accused. Section 84 of IPC is one of the provisions in Chapter IV of IPC which deals with "General Exceptions". This Section provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Burden of proving the existence of circumstances within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The question whether the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 will have to be examined from the totality of the circumstances. The unsoundness of mind as a result whereof the accused is incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of his act is a state of mind of a person which ordinarily can be inferred from the circumstances. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused may rebut this presumption by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon the accused is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused is not able to establish conclusively that he was not of sound mind at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.
(Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.):
1. The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th November 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in S.C. No.18 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Indubai. The appellant was also convicted under Sections 324 and 452 of IPC for entering into the house of PW-7 Pradeep and PW-8 Suman and causing them injuries with Sura. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case can briefly be stated as under:
(i) Deceased in the present case is Indubai. She was the mother of PW-1 Anil and mother-in-law of PW-5 Anjana. The appellant was distantly related to the family of Indubai. The land of Indubai and the appellant was situated adjacent to each other. The appellant was residing along with his father Bapurao, his wife, his elder brother Chandu and wife of Chandu. There was a common well between the family of Indubai and Bapurao. There was quarrel on account of well water between Indubai and the appellant. PW-7 Pradeep Kolekar was also residing at Yelagewasti. The land of the father of the appellant was situated adjacent to the land of Pradeep. The cattle of Pradeep had entered into the field of the appellant. On account of this, exchange of words took place between Pradeep and the appellant. PW-8 Suman Kolekar was the mother of Pradeep. She was residing with Pradeep at Yelagewasti.
(ii) It is the prosecution case that on 24.11.2004 at about 9.00 a.m. Anjana and her mother-in-law deceased Indubai were taking their cattle for grazing. At that time the appellant came in front of Indubai. He started assaulting Indubai with a knife. He assaulted Indubai on the neck and chest. PW-5 Anjana intervened. Thereupon the appellant also assaulted her on the hand and chest with a knife. Meanwhile Indubai fell down on the ground. Thereafter Anjana also fell down. The appellant assaulted Indubai on her stomach, chest and back with a knife. The appellant then ran away towards the house of Mahadeo Kolekar. PW-7 Pradeep was the son of Mahadeo Kolekar. He was residing at Yelagewadi. At about 9.15 a.m. PW-7 Pradeep was in his house. His mother PW-8 Suman was cooking food. At that time the appellant came running into the house of Pradeep with knife in his hand. The appellant then assaulted Pradeep with the knife on his stomach. PW-8 Suman intervened. Thereupon the appellant also assaulted Suman on her chest and on the hands. The appellant then ran away from the spot. While Pradeep and Suman were going to the hospital, on the way they saw Indubai lying on the ground with injuries on her person. They saw that Anjana was also lying in injured state near Indubai. Meanwhile, PW-1 Anil who was the son of Indubai was informed by his cousin brother that his mother Indubai was assaulted by the appellant with a knife. Anil was also informed that his sister-in-law Anjana was also assaulted by the appellant. On receiving the said information, PW-1 Anil went to his wadi on a motorcycle. He saw his mother Indubai and sister-in-law Anjana were lying in the field in injured condition. Anil then went to Sangola Police Station and lodged FIR (Exhibit-5). Thereafter investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested. After completion of inve
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
