The court examined the legal provisions related to insanity under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and emphasized that the burden of proving insanity rests on the accused. The court also highlighted the distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity, emphasizing that the accused must prove incapacity to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law at the time of the offence.

Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 29.9.2011 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2010, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under section 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of offence punishable under section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of offence punishable under section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the grand father of the prosecutrix filed an application before the police on 5.4.2010 stating therein that he had gone towards his fields at about 4.30 P.M. His wife was present at home. The prosecutrix was present in the house with her brother. She was watching T.V. The wife of the complainant and his grandson were in the upper storey. Accused came to the room of prosecutrix and tried to rape her. She shouted for help. However, her noise could not be heard in the din of the T.V. When the wife of the complainant opened the door, accused ran away. He was identified by the wife of the complainant as Totu alias Jiwan Ram. The incident was narrated to the complainant. He made inquiry from the prosecutrix. She revealed the incident. FIR Ext. PW-15/A was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Accused was arrested. He was also examined medically by Dr. Aman Rana. He issued MLC to PW-1/A. Site Plan Ext. PW- 15/A was prepared. Photographs were also taken. Bed sheet was also recovered. Case property was sent to F.S.L., Junga on 12.4.2010 vide RC No. 79/10. The result of the analysis is Ext. PW-15/D. Police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities.

3. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He admitted that his underwear, pants and shirt were preserved by the Medical Officer. He also produced DW-1 Dr. Savinder Singh. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove.

4. Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the accused, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

5. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, has supported the judgment dated 29.9.2011, passed by the trial Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously.

7. PW-1 Dr. Aman Rana has medically examined the accused. He issued MLC Ext. PW-1/A. According to him, smegma was absent. He noticed small abrasion on left side of glans penis. In his cross-examination, he deposed that accused was mentally normal as per his opinion. He has not noticed any abrasion or scratch on the person of the accused except one mentioned by him in the MLC.

8. PW-2 Dr. Sarla Chand has examined the prosecutrix. She has issued MLC Ext. PW-2/A. According to her, hymen was ruptured, inflamed and swelling was present. According to her, the child was sexually exposed within 24 hours of examination.

9. Prosecutrix has appeared as PW-3. In her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that she was present in the room watching T.V. on a bed. Her grandmother was present in the different room. Her younger brother was sleeping in the different room. The accused did a bad act (Ganda Kam). She cried and called her g