Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ.
Suresh Kujur, S/o Late Amrujus Kujur - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, P.S. Pamed, District Bijapur (C.G.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2018
Decided On : 26-04-2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Conviction under Section 302 and Section 307 of IPC - Cr.P.C. - [Section 302, Section 307 of IPC, Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.] - The court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the appellant was the author of the crime. The defense's argument of the appellant's unsoundness of mind was refuted based on the evidence, and it was held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 of the IPC for firing at constables and causing the death of one constable. The defense argued that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The Court affirmed the Trial Court's finding that the death was homicidal and that the appellant was the perpetrator. The defense's argument of the appellant's unsoundness of mind was refuted based on the evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC due to unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial point of time for considering the defense plea of unsoundness of mind is the time when the offense was committed. The burden of proving unsoundness of mind lies on the accused, and the evidence must establish that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it was devoid of merits, and the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT ON BOARD :
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the appellant herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.139/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment thereof, he has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month and he has been further convicted under Section 307 (3 counts) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and with fine of Rs.100/- (3 counts), in default of payment thereof, he has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 08.07.2012, after having lunch, Kheduram Sori, Constable No.960 (PW-07), Lakhmuram, Constable No.666 (PW-08) and Bablu Barsa, Constable No.33 (PW-13) were washing their hands and cleaning their utensils at hand pump and at that point of time appellant Suresh Kujur (Constable No.393), who was laced with S.L.R. Rile in his hand, reached near the hand pump and after filling in chamber of the magazine started firing at them with intention to kill them and when he missed the shots, all of them present there started running around and took shelter. When the appellant did not see anyone, he started running towards Morcha No.1 where he found constable No.647, namely, Golmundru (deceased) and shot him on his back due to which he suffered grievous injuries on his body and died on the spot.
3. Morgue intimation (Ex.P/6) regarding death of Constable Golmudru (deceased) was recorded by Shatrughan Nag, A.S.I. (PW-11). He also lodged First Information Report (Ex.P/5) in Police Station Pamed, District Bijapur (C.G.). Vide Property Seizure Memo (Ex.P/4) total three empty cartridges and blood stained soil were seized. One S.L.R. rile and 17 live cartridges were seized from possession of the appellant. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P/7A and the dead body of Golmudru was subjected to post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. G.S. Dhruw (PW-6) and post-mortem report is Ex.P/02 in which cause of death is opined as syncope & severe hemorrhage, injuries are reported to be anti-mortem and nature of death is reported to be homicidal. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
4. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid charges before the concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court from where the case was committed to the Court of Session and after committal, the matter was received by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada for trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured the guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.
5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. In defence, three witnesses were examined. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.
6. After trial, the Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2018 reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to duly establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sen
The appellant failed to prove legal insanity at the time of the incident, and thus was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
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 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 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.
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.
A criminal defendant may be acquitted if proven to be of unsound mind during the commission of an offense, highlighting the necessity for thorough psychiatric evaluation in criminal cases.
Absence of motive does not negate direct evidence of guilt in murder cases as established through testimonies and circumstantial evidence.
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....
A person with a significant mental illness, at the time of the offence, may be deemed incapable of criminal responsibility under IPC Section 84.
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
