Back
RAJNESH OSWAL, RAJESH SEKHRI
Des Raj – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
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 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
