Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, Rajesh Sekhri, JJ.
Des Raj – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
CRA No. 9900004 of 2012 and CONF No. 22 of 2012
Decided On : 18-11-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a live-in son-in-law, killed his father-in-law and four-month-old baby in a cold-blooded manner due to a property dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder of his father-in-law and five years of imprisonment for the murder of his baby.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was insane at the time of the murders. 2. Whether the prosecution proved the disclosure statement and consequent recovery of the weapon of offense.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant failed to prove his insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. The court found that the prosecution proved the disclosure statement and consequent recovery of the weapon of offense through the testimony of the investigating officer and the medical expert.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Sekhri, J. - Shivers run down the spine to know that lust of property drove a father to kill his innocent four months old suckling baby after killing his unarmed father-in-law. Instant judgment is proposed to give quietus to the present appeal hanging fire for more than 10 years.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 28.09.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court') in case titled 'State Vs. Des Raj' in file No. 32/Sessions, arising out of FIR No. 50/2002 of Police Station Chenani, vide which the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307 of the Ranbir Penal Code 1989 ('RPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 307 RPC and on default of payment of fine, the appellant has been awarded two months imprisonment with further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Shorn of verbosity, case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the record, is that Police Station Chenani, District Udhampur, on 19.08.2002 at about 7 a.m., received a source information that appellant was living as live in son-in-law in the house of his father-in-law deceased-Kamlu and on 18.08.2002 at about 10.30 p.m., he picked up quarrel with his father in law with an intention to grab his property and attacked his father in law with sickle in furtherance of intention to kill him. The appellant repeatedly attacked his father in law and killed him on the spot. Thereafter appellant also attacked his four months old baby namely Tiblu with the sickle and killed him as well. The family members of the deceased, when tried to intervene, were also attacked and sustained injuries. On the receipt of information, the police agency swung into action, registered a case for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307 RPC and investigation came into vogue. During investigation, dead bodies of both the deceased were shifted to the hospital, photographs were taken, samples of soil, blood stained soil, blood stained clothes of the deceased were obtained, seized and sealed on the spot. The accused was arrested and the weapon of offence was recovered at his instance. Postmortem reports of the deceased were also obtained.
4. It surfaced during investigation that appellant was married to the only daughter of deceased Kamlu for the last 9 years and since then he was putting up as a live in son-in-law in the house of his in laws. It revealed that appellant used to compel his father in law, deceased-Kamlu, to transfer his property in his name, which resulted in the quarrel between the duo and the appellant finally attacked his father-in-law and four months old baby with a sickle one after another, killing them on the spot and fled away. The mother-in-law of the appellant tried to intervene but she was also attacked by the appellant and she sustained injuries. After culmination of the investigation, the involvement of the appellant for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 302/307 RPC was established and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against him.
5. The appellant was charged for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307 RPC and pursuant to his pleading not guilty, prosecution was directed to lead evidence and prosecution examined thirteen witnesses.
6. The appellant denied the incriminating evidence against him in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e. Central Cr.P.C.) and examined two witnesses in defence.
7. Learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record and having due regard to the law governing the field, concluded that appellant was guilty of the commission of murder of his father-in-law and six mo
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.
The appellant failed to prove legal insanity at the time of the incident, and thus was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
If accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at time he committed offence, evidence placed before Court by accused or by prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in mind of Co....
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.
A criminal defendant may be acquitted if proven to be of unsound mind during the commission of an offense, highlighting the necessity for thorough psychiatric evaluation in criminal cases.
The absence of a clear motive does not negate a murder conviction, and the defence of insanity requires proof of incapacity to understand the nature of the act, which was not established.
A defendant can assert a mental illness defense under Section 84 of the IPC, and the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to counteract this claim.
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
