SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Gau) 250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi & Biplab Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Chiron Gogoi – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 46 (J) of 2003
Decided On: 09.04.2009

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:S.K. Medhi, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Z. Kamar, Advocate

The judgment establishes the principle that evidence of mental disorder, if not conclusively disproved, may raise a reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea of the accused, influencing the degree of culpability under the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

Unsoundness of Mind - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 84 IPC

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of his mother by inflicting a 'dao' blow on her neck. The defense claimed that the accused was suffering from mental disorder at the time of the offense and thus entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offense, as supported by witness testimonies. The medical report did not provide conclusive evidence of the accused's mental state. The court held that the accused's mental disorder, coupled with the sudden reaction and single blow, did not warrant conviction under Section 302 IPC but under Section 304 Pt. I IPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's mental disorder at the time of the offense qualified for the benefit under Section 84 IPC and influenced the degree of culpability under the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving unsoundness of mind lies on the accused. The evidence of mental disorder, if not conclusively disproved, may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding the mens rea of the accused, leading to a lesser degree of culpability.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted the accused under Section 304 Pt. I IPC, sentencing him to the period already undergone in jail.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 61 (DH)/2001 convicting the accused/Appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo RI for another one month.

2. Shortly stated the prosecution story is that on 13.7.2001 at about 5.00 P.M., the accused/Appellant gave a 'dao' blow on the neck of his mother, as a result of which she died. An FIR to that effect having been lodged with the Dhemaji Police Station, Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 72/2001 was registered under Section 302 IPC.

3. During investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence. Inquest was held on the dead body and the report thereof (Ext. 4) was prepared. The dead body was sent to Dhemaji Civil Hospital and the postmortem report was obtained. Charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/Appellant under Section 302 IPC and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhemaji committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

4. On receipt of the case on commitment, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, explained and read over to the accused/Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove the charge. The defence examined none. However, his version of the case is total denial and his statement was recorded.

5. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence on record and considering the matter in its entirety having convicted the accused/Appellant with the sentence as aforesaid, he has preferred the instant appeal. We have heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Amicus Curie as well as Mr. Z. Kamar. learned PP, Assam.

6. While Mr. Medhi, referring to the evidence on record submitted that the accused/Appellant at the time of committing the offence was suffering from mental disorder and thus entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC, Mr. Kamar, learned P.P., Assam submitted that such plea on the part of the Appellant, going by the evidence on record, is wholly untenable. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2009 Crl. L.J. 372 Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, he submitted that the plea of unsoundness of mind having not been proved by the Appellant, he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the entire evidence on record. From the evidence on record, it appears that only plea of the Appellant is that since he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the crucial time, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved such a plea. From the record it appears that on conclusion of the prosecution case and having regard to the depositions made about mental disorder of the accused/Appellant, learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 16.8.2002 requested the Joint Director of Health Services, Dhemaji to examine the accused/Appellant regarding his mental strength and to furnish report. Accordingly, a Medical Board was constituted and upon examination of the accused/Appellant it was certified as follows:

Government of Assam

Office of the Joint Director of Health

Service, Dhemaji

No. JDHS/DMJ/M. Board/02/4604/ The District Medical Board was held today on 31st August/2002 at the Office of the undersigned to examine Sri Siran Gogoi, C/O Supdt. District Jail, Dhemaji Distt. Dhemaji to furnish a medical report in respect his illness under the Chairman of Joint D.H.S. Dhemaji.

After through examination of Sri Siran Gogoi, the Medical Board opines that no abnormality is detected on his body.

Sd/-

Chairman District Medical Board, Dhemaji

8. PW 1 is the Secretary of Village Defence Party. He in his deposition stated about the hue and cry

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top