IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
Noor Mohammad Shaikh Habib – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
1. Heard.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.53 of 2015 by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldana, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC on the allegation that he committed the murder of his wife - Sadikabi and son – Mudassir at his residential house. The prosecution case is that informant PW-3 – Naseebabi Jaribkha lodged a report with Tamgaon Police Station alleging therein that, on the intervening night of 23.10.2014, the appellant assaulted his wife and son by means of axe, wherein they died on the spot. The police prepared spot panchanama after seizing a blood stained axe having 26.5 inch. wooden handle, a pillow, a quilt, plastic palam, green coloured night pant, blood stained soil and soil sample etc. from the spot. The post-mortem was conducted on the dead bodies of Sadikabi and Mudassir.
The court established that an extra judicial confession, while weak, can support a conviction if corroborated by other evidence, but unsoundness of mind under Section 84 can lead to acquittal.
The court clarified that the burden of proof for legal insanity rests on the accused, and mere claims of mental illness do not absolve one from criminal liability without sufficient evidence.
The burden of proof on the defense regarding the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC and the requirement for establishing legal insanity.
The burden of proving unsoundness of mind as a defence lies with the accused, and must be established at the time of the offence, which was not satisfied in this case.
Absence of motive does not negate direct evidence of guilt in murder cases as established through testimonies and circumstantial evidence.
An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.
The burden of proof for a defense of insanity under IPC Section 84 lies with the accused, and sufficient evidence must demonstrate unsoundness of mind at the time of the offense.
The court determined the appellant's mental illness at the time of the crime, establishing that she lacked the capacity to understand her actions, thereby allowing her appeal under Section 84 of the ....
Point of Law : Provision of Section 335 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure to be adopted when a person is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind as laid down in Section 334 of the ....
The accused failed to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence, and motive loses significance in cases based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.