Ram Bahadur Thapa vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ram Bahadur Thapa – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 881 of 2011
Decided On : 28-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Padam Singh, Udayveer Singh.
For the Respondent: C.P. Singh.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, later modified to conviction under Section 304 IPC - Prosecution failed to establish a motive; appellant’s unsound mind defense considered - Evidence of last seen together confirmed. (Paras 70-72)

(B) Insanity - Legal vs. Medical - Court explains the critical difference; burden of proof lies with the accused to prove unsoundness of mind - Conclusion drawn that while accused lacking legal insanity, his actions stemmed from a state of psychosis, impacting the degree of culpability. (Paras 50-56)

(C) Last seen theory - Court elaborates on the necessity of immediate time proximity between last seen and death in circumstantial cases; affirmed link established through proximity of events surrounding victim’s demise. (Paras 61-64)

(D) Findings on Evidence - Witness testimonies turned hostile; contradictions raised doubts over eyewitness reliability; however substantial forensic identification maintained. (Paras 60-66) (E) Sentence - Modifier ordered to reflect the context and conduct; appellant’s time served in custody prior to sentence adjustment considered for consequence. (Paras 71-73)

Table of Content
1. validity of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8)
2. defense of unsound mind under section 84 of ipc. (Para 9 , 10 , 21)
3. analysis of death being homicidal. (Para 12 , 15 , 19 , 60)
4. tests for legal insanity. (Para 51 , 54 , 68)
5. modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide. (Para 71 , 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 20-8-2011 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S.T. No. 239 of 2007, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default 5 months R.I.

2. The prosecution story in short is that Abhishek aged about 8 years was admitted in Surgical Ward of Distt. Hospital, Vidisha. It is alleged that the appellant had fallen down from a train, therefore, he was shifted to Distt. Hospital, Vidisha and was also admitted in the same Ward. It is alleged that on 8-6-2007, at about 6-6:15 P.M., the appellant threw the deceased Abhishek on the ground and killed him by pelting brick. The appellant was arrested on the spot. The police, registered the FIR on the basis of Dehati Nalishi lodged by Smt. Lalita Bai, mother of the deceased. The appellant was immediately shifted to Chiranjeevi Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. The post-mortem of the dead body of Abhishek was done. The blood stained earth, brick, clothes of the deceased were seized. They were sent for Forensic Examination. The Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

3. The Trial Court, by order dated 14-11-2002, framed charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.

4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined Abhilakh Singh (PW-1), Devnarayan (PW-2), B.M. Nayak (PW-3), Tilak (PW-4), Kailash (PW-5), Dr. K.M. Goyal (PW-6), Lalita bai (PW-7), Chironjilal (PW-8), Pradeep Kumar Kaushik (PW-9), Shambhu Singh (PW-10), Sanman Singh (PW-11), Dr. Rajiv Chaudhary (PW-12), Raviraj Singh Baghel (PW-13), Surendra Singh (PW-14), Premnarayan (PW-15), Niraj (PW-16), Rambabu Goswami (PW-17), Smt. Ismita Sachan (PW-18), Govindi (PW-19), Dr. C.K. Chaurasiya (PW-20), Dhyan Singh Chauhan (PW-21) and Dr. Shailendra Singh Mukati (PW-22).

6. The appellant examined Dr. N.R. Azad (DW-1) in his defence.

7. On the question as to whether the appellant is mentally fit for making his defence or not, Dr. C.P. Tiwari (CW-1) and Dr. R.N. Sahu (CW-2) were examined.

8. The Trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the above mentioned offence.

9. Challenging the impugned judgment and sentence, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was thrown from a train and accordingly he was admitted in the hospital in an injured condition. He had no animosity against the deceased or his family members. It appears that the appellant was of unsound mind, therefore, he is entitled for benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The material eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Even otherwise, the act of the appellant would not be a murder under Section 302 of I.P.C. and at the most, he can be said that he is guilty of offence under Section 304 PART I of I.P.C. The appellant is in jail from 8-6-2007 and has already completed 14 years of incarceration.

10. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court thinks it apposite to consider as to whether the death of Abhishek was homicidal in nature or not?

13. Dr. K.M. Goyal (PW-6) had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Abhishek and found following injurie