An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J

Heard.

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/02/2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 37/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 (twice) and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- (two counts), in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and SI for 1 month, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant Smt. Rekha Verma (PW2), mother of the appellant/accused, lodged a report on 14.4.2021 at Police Chowki Kareli Badi stating that on 13.4.2021 at about 9:00 PM, when she and her family had dinner and went to sleep her son i.e. the appellant was sleeping in his room and since he is not mentally stable, his room was locked from outside. At around 11 PM the appellant called her and stated that he wants to drink water, however out of fear, she did not open the door and called her husband i.e. deceased Pannalal Verma. Who subsequently opened the door, after which the appellant came out. When the complainant questioned him as to why is he creating ruckus then he stated that "I am Hanuman ji, Bajrang Bali, Durga" and then pushed the complainant. Thereafter the appellant started fighting with his father and grand mother (both Deceased) on which, the complainant went to call her neighbours but when she came back the door of the house was closed from inside. Upon opening the door it was found that Pannalal Verma (henceforth D1) and Triveni Verma (henceforth D2) (husband & mother in law of complainant, respectively) both were lying dead in pool of blood.

3. Based on the above report, Dehati Nalashi (Ex.P/3) was registered and a crime No. 104/2021 under Section 302 & 323 of the IPC was registered. The First Information Report (Ex.P32) has been registered. After completing the formalities of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Court under Section 302 & 323 of the IPC . The charges were read over to him, which he denied and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

5. The learned trial Court, after due appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment.Hence this appeal.

6. (a) Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. In fact, the appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of incident, as such, non-examination of mental state of the appellant at the time of incidence by the prosecution creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. He would submit that as per the statement of PW14 Daksh Kumar Sahu, at the time of recording the Merg Intimation, it was informed that the appellant is a person of unsound mind, however, the Investigating Officer, Santosh Sahu (PW15), still did not investigate into the fact of mental illness of the appellant.

(b) Learned senior counsel would also submit that the evidence of Bhupendra Kumar Verma (PW-1), Rekha Bai (PW-2), Bisahat Ram (PW-3), Lalit Verma (PW-4), Darendra Sahu (PW-5), Narendra Sagarvanshi (PW-11, Pramila Sahu (PW-12) clearly mention that the appellant