The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proof for the plea of insanity is on the defence to establish it by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Sessions Case No.66/2013 (CIS No.229/2014):

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:

4. The appellant Mohanlal was married to Smt. Jhamka (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') daughter of Sanwla Ram about 5 years before the incident. Smt. Jhamka was inflicted injuries at her matrimonial home on 05.07.2013 and was taken to the hospital where, she was declared dead. Shri Sanwla Ram (PW- 6), father of the deceased, submitted a written report (Ex.P/11) to the SHO, Police Station Jhab on the very same day i.e. 05.07.2013 at the CHC, Sanchore alleging inter alia that his daughter Jhamka was married to the appellant herein, about 5 years ago. The maternal relatives viz. the husband Mohanlal, the sister-in-law Manju Devi and the brother-in-law Bhakhra Ram used to harass and humiliate his daughter on account of demand of dowry. Whenever she came to the maternal home, she complained of these incidents to him. The complainant alleged that he had given sufficient dowry but still, the deceased was being harassed in the matrimonial home. His younger brother Himmta Ram was informed by Chhagna Ram on mobile phone regarding the murder of Jhamka on which, all of them proceeded to the matrimonial home where they saw the dead body of Jhamka lying in the Aangan (courtyard). He alleged that his daughter had been murdered on account of demand of dowry.

On the basis of this written report (Ex.P/11), an FIR No.71/2013 came to be registered at the Police Station Jhab and investigation was commenced. The appellant and the co-accused persons were arrested. The usual recoveries were effected by the I.O. acting in furtherance of the informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant Mohanlal for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 IPC and in the alternative Section 304B IPC and against the accused Bhakhra Ram and Smt. Manju Devi for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. As the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304B IPC were exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal for trial where charges were framed against the accused in the above terms. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents to prove its case. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution allegations. The accused Mohanlal took a specific plea of insanity in his explanation and stated that he was suffering from a bout of schizophrenia on the date of the incident. 5 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited in defence.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and, upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court drew a conclusion that the allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry was not substantiated. Accordingly, all the three accused Mohanlal, Manju Devi and Bhakhra Ram were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The accused i.e. Mohanlal was acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. However he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment by the impugned judgment dated 1