Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MITALI THAKURIA
Pabitra Pasowan, S/o. Lt. Saral Pasowan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)
1. Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. PP, Assam.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam in Sessions (I) Case No. 71 of 2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his brother and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 6 months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 03.04.2019 was submitted before the Officer In-charge, Khairabari P.S. by PW-2, who was a villager living in the village of the appellant. The FIR stated that at around 10 PM on 02.04.2019, the appellant had hit his elder brother Raju Pasowan on his head with a piece of wood while he was sleeping, due to which the elder brother Raju Pasowan died. The FIR also says that there was no other person in their family except the two brothers, who were both unmarried. Pursuant to the FIR dated 03.04.2019, Khairabari P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 under Section 302 IPC was registered.
4. Th
The court clarified that the burden of proof for legal insanity rests on the accused, and mere claims of mental illness do not absolve one from criminal liability without sufficient evidence.
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.
An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.
The burden of proof on the defense regarding the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC and the requirement for establishing legal insanity.
Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence and voluntary confessions, highlighting the necessity of proving intent in homicide cases.
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.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; extrajudicial confessions need corroboration to be reliable.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for insanity lies with the accused, but a history of mental illness can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the mental capacity of the accused at the time of the offense to establish guilt.
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
