Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Dhananjay Bhivdas Pore and ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1061 of 2003
Decided On : 27-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w 34 and 324 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Offence of Murder - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Mental disorder or mental deficiency – Appeal against Acquittal - Whether in present case, a reasonable doubt is created with regard to mental state of Respondent No. 1 at time of commission of act, on preponderance of probabilities - Respondent No. 2 is mother of Respondent No. 1 - Deceased victim and Respondent No. 1 were carrying on their business of selling groceries and coconuts in the vicinity of the temple - There was a quarrel between two in relation to business of selling coconuts to devotees visiting the temple and business of Respondent No. 1 was adversely affected - Deceased was sitting on his motorcycle near house of one teacher, waiting for his wife and nephew, intending to take to their agricultural field, located at Road - As wife was proceeding towards motorcycle along with nephew, Respondent No. 2 met her on way and enquired about whereabouts of wife’s mother-in-law. Thereafter, wife and nephew both sat on motorcycle when suddenly Respondent No. 1 approached them from behind and jabbed a knife into the of deceased, thereby injuring him - All three – Deceased, wife and Nephew – fell down to ground from motorcycle. Respondent No. 1 then proceeded towards deceased to stab him with knife for a second time, but wife pushed him back and, in that process, the knife slashed wife on her left hand, thereby injuring her - Meanwhile, deceased got up and started to proceed towards his house, and on seeing this, Respondent No. 1 followed him. Just as deceased was opening the shutter of his shop / house, Respondent No. 1 caught hold of the collar of decease shirt and pushed him to the ground. Respondent No. 1 then sat on deceased and stabbed him in his chest and hands.
Finding of the court :
It is a well-settled position of law that reversal of acquittal is permissible on the touchstone of the principle that the appellate court should, generally, be loath in disturbing the finding of facts recorded by a trial court as the trial court has the advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses, and that the appellate court should interfere with the conclusions of the trial court only when they are palpably erroneous, unreasonable, perverse and likely to result in injustice - Court opinion that the Respondent No. 1 has been able to create sufficient doubt in our minds pertaining to his mental condition at the time of the occurrence of the incident. This would allow the Respondent No. 1 to claim the exception provided for under Section 84 IPC – Most importantly the pointed evidence given by D.W. nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, the Respondent No. 1, in our opinion, has succeeded in proving his defence of insanity and more specifically, legal insanity at the time of committing the act. Overall, the circumstances undeniably lead to conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (mental illness) and did not realize the nature and consequences of his act at the time of commission - Prosecution cannot be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt. From materials on record and the evidence of defence witnesses, it clearly appears to us that the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from a mental disorder/illness prior to and after the commission of the act. We concur with the findings and decision of Trial Court. In view thereof, the case of the Prosecution-in-appeal must fail.
Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. The learned ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by judgment and order dated 29.05.2003, has acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The State of Maharashtra is in appeal against the said judgment and order acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2002. A notable feature in this case is the defence of insanity pleaded by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 84 IPC, which carves out an exception that an act will not be an offence if done by a person who, at the time of doing the same, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and has succeeded in proving insanity within the meaning of Section 84 IPC at the time of commission of the act and hence deserved acquittal.
2. Respondent No. 2 is the mother of Respondent No. 1. Deceased victim Padmakar and Respondent No. 1 were carrying on their business of selling groceries and coconuts in the vicinity of the temple of Sri Siddhanath in Kharsundi Village, Taluka Atpadi. According to the Prosecution, there was a quarrel between the two in relation to the business of selling coconuts to the devotees visiting the temple and the business of the Respondent No. 1 was adversely affected.
3. On 22.07.2002, at about 4:30 PM, deceased Padmakar was sitting on his motorcycle near the house of one teacher called Kazi Guruji, waiting for his wife Alka and nephew Shivkumar, intending to take them to their agricultural field, located at Atpadi Road. As Alka was proceeding towards the motorcycle along with Shivkumar, Respondent No. 2 met her on the way and enquired about the whereabouts of Alka’s mother-in-law. Thereafter, Alka and Shivkumar both sat on the motorcycle when suddenly the Respondent No. 1 approached them from behind and jabbed a knife into the neck of Padmakar, thereby injuring him. All three – Padmakar, Alka and Shivkumar – fell down to the ground from the motorcycle. Respondent No. 1 then proceeded towards Padmakar to stab him with the knife for a second time, but Alka pushed him back and, in that process, the knife slashed Alka on her left hand, thereby injuring her. Meanwhile, Padmakar got up and started to proceed towards his house, and on seeing this, Respondent No. 1 followed him. Just as Padmakar was opening the shutter of his shop / house, Respondent No. 1 caught hold of the collar of Padmakar’s shirt and pushed him to the ground. Respondent No. 1 then sat on Padmakar and stabbed him in his chest and hands.
4. Due to the commotion, several people gathered at the spot and the Respondent No. 1 got up and ran towards his house with the knife. Padmakar was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Kharsundi, in a rickshaw and thereafter taken to Rural Hospital, Vita, in a jeep where the doctors on duty declared him dead. Bharat Rajmane filed a complaint of the incident with Vita Police Station, but, as the offence took place within the jurisdiction of Atpadi Police Station, the complaint was transferred to Atpadi Police Station. Initially, C.R. 48 of 2002 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered only against Respondent No. 1.
5. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 23.07.2002. Respondent No. 2 was, on conducting the Panchanama, arrested on 01.08.2002 on the ground that she had signalled Respondent No. 1 to proceed towards Padmakar by nodding her head.
6. In the evening of 23.07.2002, a police sub-inspector from Atpadi Police Station, Shri Arun Dyandev Fuge, received a call that there was a quarrel at Kharsundi Village and Padmakar was injured. Shri Fuge arrived at Kharsundi Village, arrested the Respondent No. 1 and took him to Atpadi Police Station. Inquest was drawn by Shri Lakshman Borate, Ass
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
