Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Suresh Choudhary, S/o. Late Ganesh Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2212 of 2017
Decided On : 08-10-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300, 84, 307, 302 – Arms Act – Section 27 – Offence of Murder – Order of Conviction – Sessions Judge has observed that appellant has started a murderous assault on victim from seized rifle which is established from reports of Sergeant Major and State Forensic Science Laboratory that rifle was in perfect working condition and seized fired bullets were fired from INSAS rifle – Sessions Judge has finally concluded that appellant has committed murder of Ajay Baitha and Ranjeet Prasad Sharma and attempted to murder Harivansh Dubey – He was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and a fine under Section 302, IPC and R.I. for 7 years and a fine under Section 307, IPC – Under default stipulation appellant shall suffer S.I. for 6 months on each count. – Appellant has set up a defence that he was undergoing treatment for mental illness and in support of plea of unsoundness of mind he has examined Dr. Md. Jalil and Dr. Umesh Narayan Choudhary who have come to Court to depose that appellant was under their treatment – Held, Court has to consider circumstances that proceeded, attended or followed crime but such circumstances must be established by credible evidence. – Circumstances of this case do not establish that appellant was not knowing what he was doing and consequences thereof. – After incident he hid himself behind temple and did no fire again – he had understood consequences. – There may be several stages of mental illness such as stress, anxiety, depression, panic disorder, hyper-activity disorder, dementia etc. but all are not of kind referred to in Section 84. – Protective umbrella of Section 84, IPC exonerating an accused from liability of doing a criminal act covers three situations viz. (a) accused was incapable of knowing nature of act, or (b) accused was incapable of knowing that what he is doing is (i) wrong, or (ii) contrary to law. – Appellant has acted like a crazy and provocation if any was self sought. – Materials produced during trial of S.T. No. 197 of 2011 were sufficient to hold him guilty under Section 302, IPC. – Indiscriminate firing by him would impute requisite knowledge to him as provided under Clause Fourthly of Section 300, IPC that his act was so imminently dangerous that in all probability. – It would have resulted in death, even assuming for a moment absence of intention as to cover his case under Clause Firstly. – He was seen walking inside barrack and at that time he might have been agitated or under some mental stress but just before incident there was no provocation or instigation, by others. – There was no sudden quarrel in midst of which in heat of passion he has started firing. – His acts are therefore definitely not covered under Exception-1 or Exception-4 to Section 300, IPC. – Court hold that charge under Section 302, IPC against appellant has rightly been found proved by learned Sessions Judge – Criminal Appeal devoid of any merit is dismissed. – Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
On 28.09.2010 at about noon Suresh Choudhary, the appellant, went on a shooting spree in a police barrack. At that time Srikant Pandey, Harivansh Dubey, Ajay Baitha and Ranjeet Prasad Sharma were taking rest after a duty break. The appellant picked up a loaded rifle and when Ajay Baitha quizzed what he was up to he fired at him and then shot Ranjeet Prasad Sharma. He chased and shot at Harivansh Dubey outside the barrack. Ajay Baitha and Ranjeet Prasad Sharma died almost instantly and Harivansh dubey suffered grievous injury on his right arm. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Harivansh Dubey which was recoded at 16:30 p.m. on 28.09.2010 in I.C.C.U. ward of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag at bed No. 3, Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 153 of 2010 was registered against the appellant under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against him and he has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Ajay Baitha and Ranjeet Prasad Sharma and for attempting to murder Harivansh Dubey. During the trial the prosecution has examined seventeen witnesses and except the doctors and B.D.O. all were present in the police barrack premises on 28.09.2010-Kunwar Singh Pahan, B.D.O. has conducted inquest and Dr. Ajay Kumar Ranjan has conducted post-mortem examination.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the informant who is an injured eye-witness and held that the eye-witness account of the incident as narrated by the informant is supported by three other eye-witnesses who also tendered cogent and convicting evidence and there is sufficient corroboration from PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11 who had reached the place of occurrence on hearing sounds of shooting. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the appellant has started a murderous assault on the victim from the seized rifle which is established from the reports of Sergeant Major and the State Forensic Science Laboratory that the rifle was in perfect working condition and the seized fired bullets were fired from INSAS rifle. The learned Sessions Judge has finally concluded that the appellant has committed murder of Ajay Baitha and Ranjeet Prasad Sharma and attempted to murder Harivansh Dubey. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302, IPC and R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307, IPC. Under the default stipulation the appellant shall suffer S.I. for 6 months on each count.
3. The appellant has set up a defence that he was undergoing treatment for mental illness and in support of plea of unsoundness of mind he has examined Dr. Md. Jalil and Dr. Umesh Narayan Choudhary who have come to the Court to depose that the appellant was under their treatment.
4. Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was no enmity between the appellant and the victims. There are three witnesses including the informant who have stated that the appellant and Ajay Baitha were on friendly terms and atleast five witnesses-three prosecution and two defense-have deposed in the Court that the appellant was sick and just before the unfortunate incident he was undergoing treatment. On such evidence, with the help of a judgment in "Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra", (2018) 7 SCC 718, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that conviction of the appellant in S.T. No. 197 of 2011 is illegal.
5. In most of the criminal jurisdictions insanity is one of the defences to avoid criminal liability. Historically, insanity was seen as a ground for leniency. In early times the insane were known as "non compos mentis" and "non bon memory". The law in the early days that the offence committed by an insane person which would amount to murder or other felony was not punishable primarily for the reason that an insane person does not carry mens rea and pu
