Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Pritinker Diwaker and Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, JJ.
Madvi Chaitu - Appellants
Vs.
State of C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2010
Decided On : 07-12-2015
Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 – Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 302 – Offence of Murder – Injury - On other hand supporting impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that eyewitnesses to the incident have fully supported the case of prosecution and from their statements it has been established that it is the accused/appellant who killed his sons Vishnu and caused severe injuries to his wife and daughter - He submits that a prompt report was lodged by and he too has supported the prosecution case – Held, To come true on touchstone of law, mere pleading as regards insanity and casual statements of some of the witnesses to this effect is not worth acceptance but they are required to be proved by leading cogent and clinching evidence in support thereof - There is nothing of this sort herein to show whether the appellant received any medical treatment for mental disease or sought any opinion from the qualified expert. Customary treatment including exorcism pleaded to have been taken by the accused for his mental disease would not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that on account of being of unsound mind, he was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act or that the acts were morally wrong or contrary to law, rather something more like medical evidence would be required for doing so. To put it differently, the defence in this case has not been in a position to prove in accordance with law that the cognitive faculties of the accused were so impaired that he was not in a position to see the repercussions of his act and since it has not been done, the accused/appellant cannot disown his guilt of murdering his two sons and causing dangerous injuries to wife and daughter - Further, the act of the accused in denying charges, pleading trial as well as false implication in 313 statements makes this Court to draw an inference that his mental faculties were not so impaired to provide him the strength to wriggle out of the rigor of law. Counsel for the appellant has tried his best to put up his case by taking support from several case laws but all of them being on different footing, could not convince the judicial mind of this Court – Appeal Dismissal
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant was convicted of murder of his two sons and causing grievous injuries to his wife and daughter, with evidence supporting the prosecution case that he committed these acts with a sharp-edged weapon, resulting in fatal injuries to the children and serious injuries to the wife and daughter (!) (!) (!) .
The medical evidence confirmed the homicidal nature of the injuries and established that the deaths of the children were caused by internal hemorrhage and shock due to neck and head injuries inflicted by the accused (!) (!) .
Witness testimonies corroborated the occurrence of the incident, the appellant’s presence at the scene, and his admission of guilt, with several witnesses noting that the appellant had a history of mental instability and was treated according to village customs, including exorcism (!) (!) (!) .
The seizure of the blood-stained weapon used in the attack was supported by forensic evidence, which confirmed the presence of blood, linking it to the crime (!) .
The defense claimed that the appellant was suffering from insanity or unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident, relying on his mental condition before and after the event, and the history of treatment for mental health issues (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that mere claims of insanity or casual witness statements are insufficient; such defenses require cogent and clinching medical evidence to establish that the accused was incapable of understanding the nature of his acts or their wrongfulness at the time of the crime (!) (!) (!) .
The court found no substantial evidence to prove that the appellant was legally insane at the time of the offense, noting that he participated actively in the proceedings, did not raise any mental health issues during trial, and there was no medical or expert evidence supporting the insanity plea (!) (!) .
The legal standards for establishing insanity as a defense require proof that, at the time of the act, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law, which was not demonstrated in this case (!) (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the appellant was conscious of his actions and had the requisite mental capacity, and therefore, he could not benefit from the defense of insanity or unsoundness of mind (!) (!) .
As a result, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the conviction and sentence based on the sufficiency of evidence and the absence of legal insanity at the time of the offense (!) .
In summary, the court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the appellant's mental condition did not meet the legal threshold for the defense of insanity, and the evidence conclusively established his guilt for the crimes committed.
Pritinker Diwaker, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T. No. 136/09 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, each under two counts and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 300/- on two counts and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 200/- on two counts respectively with default stipulations. As per the prosecution case, on 6.10.2009 in between 8-9 pm the accused/appellant had a quarrel with his wife Rudo (PW-3) on the ground that she never used to cook food in time. It is alleged that the accused/appellant caused injuries with axe to his two sons namely Vishnu aged 3 years and Vishwanath aged 5 years as well as daughter Bodki, aged 6 years and wife Rudo. Vishnu and Vishwanath however succumbed to the injuries sustained by them whereas Bodki and Rudo suffered grievous injuries. FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Madvi Raitu (PW-1) on 7.10.2009, based on which offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. Merg intimations Ex. P-2 and P-3 were also recorded on 7.10.2009. Injured Rudo and Bodki were medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) Rita Gedam vide Exs.P-18 and P-19 respectively. Inquest over the dead bodies of Vishnu and Vishwanath was performed vide Exs.P-15 & P-16 respectively. The dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. N.S. Nag (PW-12) vide Exs.P-22 and P-23 and he noticed incised wound over left side of neck of deceased Vishwanath and incised wound over occipital region of skull, neck, fracture of occipital bone of deceased Vishnu. According to the doctor, the cause of death of Vishwanath was internal hemorrhage, hemorrhagic shock due to neck injury and that of Vishnu the internal hemorrhage, hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and their death was homicidal in nature. On the memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex. P-9) one bloodstained axe was/seized from his possession vide Ex. P/10. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302 twice and 307 twice IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly.
2. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.
3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above, by the judgment under assail herein.
4. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that as the accused/appellant was suffering from insanity and unsoundness of mind, he was not aware of the consequences of his act and therefore, is entitled for the protection under Section 84 of IPC. He has placed his reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. V.L.N. Sastry v. Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 27, in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 and in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Vidhya Devi, (2011) 15 SCC 228.
5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that eyewitnesses to the incident PW-1 Raitu, PW-2 Raiti and PW-3 Rudo have fully supported the case of prosecution and from their statements it has been established that it is the accused/appellant who killed his sons Vishnu and Vishwanath and caused severe injuries to his wife Rudo and daughter Bodki. He submits that a prompt report was lodged by PW-1 Raitu and he too has supported the prosecution case. PW-7 Madvi Piso and PW-8 Madvi Chaiti have also supported the prosecution case. It has been further argued that on the memorandum of the accused/appellant Ex. P-9, one bloodstained axe was seized u
SupremeToday
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
