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 – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1061 of 2003
Decided On : 27-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 r/w 34, 324, 84 – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal - Offence of Murder - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Appeal against said judgment and order acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case - A notable feature in this case is defence of insanity pleaded by Respondent No. 1 under 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 time of doing same, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing nature of act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law - Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and has succeeded in proving insanity within meaning of Section 84 IPC at time of commission of act and hence deserved 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 – Held, In view of observations and findings above, and most importantly pointed evidence given by DW Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, Respondent No. 1, in court opinion, has succeeded in proving his defence of insanity and more specifically, legal insanity at time of committing act - Overall, circumstances undeniably lead to conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (mental illness) and did not realize nature and consequences of his act at time of commission – Court are therefore of considered opinion that Respondent No. 1 has been able to create sufficient doubt in our minds pertaining to his mental condition at time of occurrence of incident - This would allow Respondent No. 1 to claim exception provided for under Section 84 IPC - Case of Prosecution cannot be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt - From materials on record and evidence of defence witnesses, it clearly appears to us that Respondent No. 1 was suffering from a mental disorder/illness prior to and after commission of act – Court concur with findings and decision of Trial Court - In view thereof, case of Prosecution-in-appeal must fail - Criminal Appeal stands 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 P.M. 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
Point of Law : Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all releva....
The court ruled that the accused's defense of insanity under Section 84 IPC was not established due to insufficient evidence of mental imbalance at the time of the offense.
If accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at time he committed offence, evidence placed before Court by accused or by prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in mind of Co....
The appeal highlighted that an accused can be absolved of criminal liability if proven to be unsound of mind at the time of offense, adhering to S. 84 IPC.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for insanity lies with the accused, but a history of mental illness can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
The failure to assess the appellant's mental fitness before trial constituted a serious procedural irregularity, necessitating the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
The court established that a valid plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC can overturn a conviction if supported by credible medical evidence.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proof for the plea of insanity is on the defence to establish it by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt.
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
