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.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Appellant was tried for the offence of murder under Section 300 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC"), punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, for causing the death of one Mikmar Lepcha and one Dhan Keshi Tamang at a cardamom drying shed, situated at Sumindang, Upper Dzongu, North Sikkim, on 01-12-2019. The Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, North Sikkim, at Mangan, by the impugned Judgment, dated 26-11-2020, in Sessions Trial Case No.02 of 2020 (State of Sikkim vs. Pradeep Khatiwara) convicted the Appellant of the offence as charged. Vide Order on Sentence, dated 23-12-2020, the Convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, was imposed on him, with a default clause of imprisonment.

2. The offence came to light when Exhibit 1, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Complainant, Ranshor Limboo, (PW-3) of Chadey, North Sikkim, on 03-12-2019, before the Mangan Police Station, North Sikkim. Based on Exhibit 1, a case was registered against the Appellant who was suspected to have committed the offence and investigation was taken up by PW-14, Police Inspector (P.I.), Sher Bahadur Manger. Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Section 300 of the IPC for committing the murder of the two victims named above. The Appellant took the plea of "not guilty" to the charge framed against him by the Learned Trial Court, for two counts of murder. The Prosecution sought to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt by examining fourteen witnesses. The Learned Trial Court thereafter examined the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the "Cr.P.C."), during which he admitted to having assaulted the victims, in turns, with a wooden plank and having thrown the dead body of Mikmar Lepcha from a cliff, while Dhan Keshi Tamang was assaulted with an axe and her body tumbled down, below the cardamom drying shed. His defence was that, he was first attacked by the two victims upon which he retaliated. He sought to examine three witnesses. DW-1, his mother deposed that when the Appellant was studying in Class VIII, he accidentally knocked over a lamp and a fire broke out in their house, after which his mental status became impaired. That, he was treated by a Psychiatrist in Singtam. That, the Appellant used to be in possession of his medical documents. DW-2, the Psychiatrist, who treated the Appellant, deposed that he had prescribed medication for Psychosis to a person named Pradeep Khatiwara. DW-3 was the sister of the Appellant who claimed that in the year 2011-12, she had taken him to a Psychiatrist as the Appellant was depressed. Thereafter, DW-2 in 2018 had prescribed medication for the Appellant and he was taken to the Psychiatrist four times. DWs 1, 2 and 3, at that stage furnished no documentary evidence to substantiate the facts regarding the mental status of the Appellant as deposed by them. The Learned Trial Court on consideration of all the evidence on record convicted the Appellant as delineated above.

3. The Prosecution narrative is that the Appellant along with the two deceased persons were employed by PW-2 at Sumindang, North Sikkim, after the Diwali of 2019, for harvesting the cardamom fruits in his field. All three resided in the cardamom drying shed of PW-2. About a week prior to the incident, the deceased Mikmar Lepcha had complained to PW-2 of having been threatened with death by the Appellant who had wielded his bamphok (Machete) in front of him. PW-2 had gone to the shed and settled the matter. However, on the evening of 01-12-2019 Mikmar Lepcha was assaulted with a wooden plank, while Dhan Keshi Tamang was stuck with an axe, by the Appellant, resulting in the death of both the persons.

4. In Appeal, the arguments raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellant before this Court were that the question of unsoundness of mind of the Appellant ough