The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proving mental disorder lies on the accused to claim the defense under Section 84 IPC, and the nature of the injuries and circumstances surrounding the incident are crucial in determining the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 14-08-2003, in SC 60/2007, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. The prosecution alleges that on 13-04-2003, in the evening, at 09:00 PM, when Harsh Dua, and his brothers, Praveen and Sonu Dua, had gone to attend the engagement ceremony of their friend at Sanjay Park, Govind Pura, and were talking amongst themselves, the Appellant reached there, and picked up a quarrel with Praveen. He reportedly told Harsh Dua, that Praveen had slapped him, and that he would not leave him. Harsh and the others tried to calm down the appellant; he went away. Harsh and his brothers went inside the park. A few minutes later, Inderjeet Chawla @ Deepak, a friend of Parveen also reached there. When all these friends were conversing, the Appellant came there. He complained to Inderjeet that Parveen had slapped him, without a cause, and that it did not bode well for him. Again, Praveen’s brothers tried to diffuse the situation, and calm down the appellant; they also apologized on behalf of Parveen. At this stage, Parveen slapped the Appellant. Inderjeet tried to intervene; Jagtar then pulled out a knife, and inflicted injuries on him. He cried out for help. Parveen tried to save him; the appellant then turned on him, and gave several serious knife blows on his vital parts. Parveen fell down. The appellant fled the spot. Parveen’s brothers rushed him to the hospital. Inderjeet gave his statement; an FIR, No. 136/03 PS Preet Vihar was registered, alleging offences under Sections 307/324 IPC. Later, in the early hours of the next morning, Parveen died. The appellant was arrested for committing the crime; Section 302 IPC was also added to the charge sheet. He pleaded innocence, and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses in support of its case. The appellant examined his mother, in his defence. In addition, the court examined two witnesses, since a plea was taken that the Appellant was suffering from mental disorder, and was undergoing treatment in jail. One of these was CW-2, who had treated the Appellant for depression for over two years, i.e. 2000-end 2002, when apparently he was under regular medical treatment for mania, from April, 2000. After 2005, he underwent treatment for bi-polar depression. After considering all the materials on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the Appellant for the offence mentioned in the preceding portion of the judgment, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment in the manner described earlier.

4. Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant urged at the outset, that the Trial Court findings as far as they pertained to the facts go, cannot be assailed, because PW1 Inderjeet Chawla, the injured witness, and PW-5 as well as PW-7, brothers of the deceased, supported the prosecution about the attack which took place. Counsel urged that though there were some variations in the testimonies of these witnesses, they did not undermine the basic story about how Parveen had been attacked. It was however urged that the Trial Court fell into error in not noticing that the Court witnesses’ depositions had clearly shown that the Appellant was not in his senses. Court witness No.2 was the doctor who had treated the Appellant even before the incident; he deposed about his mental illness. Even after his conviction, when he was undergoing sentence, the Appellant was a psychiatric patient, who underwent regular treatment. These clearly pointed to his not being in control of his senses at the time of the incident, in April 2003. The Court should have given these serious consideration; instead the impugned judgment does not reflect any application of mind.

5. It was argued next that even if the prosecution is said to have proved all the facts alleged in this case, at best the Appellant