2001 Supreme(Gau) 65
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.B.Deb, Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
Gopal Bhowmik -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura -Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 55 of 2000
Decided On : 16-03-2001
B.Das, H.Sarkar, S.Das
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defense has the onus to substantiate the plea of insanity to avail the benefit of section 84 IPC.
Headnote:
Insanity - Criminal Law - IPC 302, IPC 326 - The court discussed the plea of insanity raised by the appellant under section 84 of the IPC. It analyzed the testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence to determine the mental state of the appellant at the time of the offense. The court found that the appellant failed to prove his insanity and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 and section 326 of the IPC for causing death and grievous hurt to the victims. The defense raised a plea of insanity under section 84 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove his insanity at the time of the offense.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the offense, thus claiming immunity from criminal liability under section 84 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence to determine the mental state of the appellant. It emphasized that the defense had the onus to substantiate the plea of insanity to avail the benefit of section 84 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were upheld.
The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.6.1996 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Mr. MC Roy), West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 25 (WT/A) of 1994.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant Shri Gopal Bhowmik under section 302 IPC with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and also under section 326 IPC with a sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with a further direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.8.1990 in the evening, the appellant Shri Gopal Bhowmik came to the house of his relative Shri Pradip Roy. The appellant is the husband of the sister of Shri Pradip Roy of Amtali. Shri Pradip Roy was not available in the house. His wife Smti Swapna Roy and daughters Bulti alias Prativa and Papan alias Papri had been there in the house. The appellant being close relative came and asked Smti Swapna Roy to cook Khichuri (hotchpotch) and told her that he would stay for the night and stayed the night. During the fag-end of the night while the inmates, namely, Smti Swapna Roy and her two daughters Bulti alias Prativa and Papan alias Papri were sleeping suddenly the appellant having entered into the room, gave a dao blow in the cheek of Swapna, Swapna woke up and tried to resist the second attempt being made by the appellant with the dao, but the second dao blow chopped off her right hand at wrist level. Thereafter, the appellant gave further dao below on her. Hearing the cry of mother, both the daughters woke up but unfortunately the appellant gave dao blow to Bulti alias Prativa, as a result Bulti became unconscious having sustained grievous injury. The appellant also gave another dao blow to the youngest daughter of Swapna and all sustained injuries. Being attracted by the alarming cry of the inmates, the neighbouring people rushed to the spot. That happened at about 5.30 AM, the early morning of 22.8.1990. On seeing the people the accused fled away and as such none could apprehend him on the spot. All the injured were sent to GB Hospital, Agartala where injured Bulti alias Prativa succumbed to the injury on 22.8.1990 itself.
After investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 302/326 IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges on 10.8.1994 under section 302/326/307 IPC and transferred the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.
4. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed for causing culpable homicide so far the deceased Bulti is concerned and charges under section 326/307 IPC were framed so far the grievous hurt committed in relation to the injured Smti Swapna Roy and Ms Papan Roy are concerned.
5. Since the incident of assault causing death and grievous injuries remained not challenged by the defence during trial and also during argument in the appeal, reproduction of the charges in this judgment is conveniently avoided.
6. The oral testimonies of two injured eye witnesses namely Smti Swapna Roy (PW 5) and Ms Papan Roy alias Papri (PW 6) unquestionably inspire the unhesitant confidence as to the commission of the incident of assault by the appellant causing death to injured Bulti and grievous hurt to injured Swapna Roy and simple hurt to Ms Papan Roy and there left nothing to infer a second view.
7. From the evidence of Dr. Pijush Kanti Das (PW 8) who held autopsy on the corpus of Bulti Roy (good name Prativa Roy), it remains proved beyond doubt that the injuries sustained by Bulti were sufficient for causing death. The nature of injuries found in the corpus of Bulti were of following nature as available from the testimony of Dr. PK Das (PW 8) :
"(1) Sharp cut grievous injuries left side of the neck involving muscles, vessels, trachea and oeso