IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN, JJ.
Ram Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 5202 of 2012
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 383, 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 76 to 106 - Murder offence - Mental disorder – Appeal against Conviction - Appellant lost his mental balance and assaulted all persons with axe causing injuries and all injured succumbed to injuries – Held, Accused has not been able to demonstrate, by means of evidence, that at time of incident he was influenced by mental disorder - It has not come in evidence that before incident he had fits, further there is no evidence that before or soon after incident he had suffered fits - It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed - Hence, applying principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforenoted judgments and having regard to totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed, Court find that punishment imposed upon appellant by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in matter on point of punishment imposed upon accused - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Syed Waiz Mian, J.
1. This Jail Appeal has been filed by appellant Ram Singh, through Superintendent, District Jail, Lalitpur, under section 383 Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre), Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 44 of 2007, State vs. Ram Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 1089 of 2007, under Section 302 I.P.C., whereby appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo three years' additional imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:
3. Informant-None Raja, has stated in the written First Information Report that his brother Ram Singh was suffering from mental illness/ disorder, since last ten years. On 22.03.2007, at around 1 p.m. his wife Smt. Guddi Raja, Badi Raja w/o appellant Ram Singh, his daughter and son, aged about 5 and 1 years, respectively, were present in the house. All of a sudden appellant-Ram Singh, lost his mental balance and assaulted all the aforesaid persons with axe causing injuries and all the injured succumbed to the injuries.
4. Bodies were lying in the courtyard of the house and the incident was seen by many villagers. Appellant-Ram Singh, while running from the house was caught by the villagers Narendra Singh, Mulayam Singh, Mansingh and Govind Das.
5. On the strength of the First Information Report, case at Crime No. 1089 of 2007, under Section 302 I.P.C. came to be registered on 22.03.2007, at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur.
6. P.W.-4, Sub Inspector, Kallu Prasad Yadav, written the First Information Report, Chik at 2.30 p.m. and he also entered the substance of the First Information Report in the G.D. No. 33 of 22.03.2007. Investigation was entrusted to the P.W.-7, N.H. Farooqui, who took the investigation at the direction of Station House Officer and reached at the place of occurrence and saw that dead bodies of Smt. Guddi Raja w/o Naune Raja, Smt. Badi Raja w/o Appellant-Ram Singh, Kumari Mandavi and Mangal Singh daughter and son of appellant-Ram Singh, were lying in the courtyard of the house. Thereafter, Station House Officer, Kotwali, Raj Bahadur Sahu and S.I. Shri Ram Ratan Verma, along with police personnel also reached on the spot. In the presence of Panch, inquest reports of the bodies of the deceased, on the dictation of S.H.O. Raj Bahadur Sahu, and other necessary papers in connection with the inquest of the bodies of the deceased, were prepared by Sub Inspector N.H. Farooqui.
7. P.W.9-, Raj Bahadur Sahu, Sub Inspector, has prepared site plan of the place of occurrence, paper no. 66 Ka. He in the presence of Mahesh Prasad and Virendra Singh, collected the blood stained and plain earth and same were put in two separate small containers and both containers were sealed.
8. P.W.-9, Raj Bahadur Sahu, had also collected the blood stained axe in the presence of the witnesses and memo, paper No. 7-ka was prepared and signed by accused Ram Singh, who was caught on the spot; Ram Singh had worn blood stained shirt and the accused was asked to strip off his shirt. It was also taken into possession and memo, in the presence of Virendra Singh and Mahesh Prasad was prepared and signed.
9. Inquest report of the dead bodies of the deceased and other necessary papers were forwarded to district mortuary to conduct autopsy to ascertain real cause of death of the deceased.
10. Dr. M.C. Gupta, posted in District Hospital, Lalitpur, conducted the autopsy over the bodies of the deceased and he in his writing and signatures, prepared autopsy reports of the deceased.
11. Ram Ratan Verma, who had also reached on the place of occurrence accompanying Station House Officer, together with N.H. Farooqui, S.I. had conducted the inquest over the bodies of the deceased. On the strength of the collected incriminating evidence, during investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet, paper
Bapu Gajraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Sudhakaran Singh vs. State of Kerala
The appeal highlighted that an accused can be absolved of criminal liability if proven to be unsound of mind at the time of offense, adhering to S. 84 IPC.
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.
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....
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....
A person with a significant mental illness, at the time of the offence, may be deemed incapable of criminal responsibility under IPC Section 84.
The court ruled that a defendant's claim of mental illness must meet the standard of legal insanity, with no relief unless it can be proven that they lacked understanding of their actions during the ....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.