IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sangeeta Chandra, Prakash Singh
Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Desh Ratan Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, Rajesh @ Sajesh Tiwari, Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the entire record available before us.
2. Under challenge in this criminal appeal is the impugned Judgment and Order dated 24-12-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2002, tilted as ‘State Vs Rajesh @ Sajesh Twari’, arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2002, under section 302 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Fakharpur, District-Bahraich, whereby the appellant, Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for two years.
3. The brief prosecution story is, that the father of the appellant, Prahlad Kumar Tewari, the informant, alleged that his son, Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari, aged about 36 years, was suffering with mental sickness since last one year and his treatment was got done. He further alleged that the appellant, after separation fr
Bhajju Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharastra
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs State of Maharashtra
James Martin Vs State of Kerala
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.
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.
(1) Murder – If motive is proved, that would supply another link in chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case, though absence of motive is ....
The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the accused to provide a cogent explanation for the incriminating circumstances, which he failed to do.
An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.
(1) Mental insanity of accused – Only such mental or medical condition which affects or disturbs faculty of person which renders him unable to know nature of act committed or that he was doing which ....
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the mental capacity of the accused at the time of the offense to establish guilt.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the duty of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and the consideration of the appellant's mental condition in criminal cases.
A confession must be truly voluntary and free from police influence for admissibility in court; the prosecution is required to establish a clear circumstantial link to the accused, failing which reas....
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.