Back
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
State of Sikkim – Appellant
Versus
Rupesh Manger (Thapa) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal under section 302 ipc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding mental state and intention. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consideration of sections 84 ipc and 105 evidence act. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Respondent/Accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, the 'IPC'), vide the assailed Judgment, dated 30-10-2018, in Sessions Trial Case No.01 of 2017, the Learned Trial Court having concluded that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.
2. Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that; P.W.1 Reeta Rai, the daughter of the deceased, lodged Exhibit 1, the FIR, on 16-10-2016, informing the Rongli Police Station, East Sikkim, that the 81 year old deceased, her father who was living with her, had been attacked by the Respondent (her nephew and grandson of the deceased), who had arrived the previous day along with the deceased to stay with her, with a sharp aged weapon (patang) and murdered him. Exhibit 1 was duly registered under Section 302 of the IPC against the Respondent, aged 25 years. P.W.16 took up the investigation, on completion of which Charge-Sheet was submitted aga
The court ruled that the accused's defense of insanity under Section 84 IPC was not established due to insufficient evidence of mental imbalance at the time of the offense.
Point of Law : Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all releva....
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for insanity lies with the accused, but a history of mental illness can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.
The accused failed to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence, and motive loses significance in cases based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses.
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 duty of the Investigating Officer to subject the accused to immediate medical examination and place the evidence before the court in cases of suspected mental illness, and the importance of provi....
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.
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....
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
