The appellant failed to prove legal insanity at the time of the incident, and thus was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 27-4-2017 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in S.T. No 400169 of 2012, and convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the following offences :

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that on 26-3-2012 at about 16:30, the complainant Daujaram (father of the Appellant) lodged an FIR in an injured condition that he, his wife and Asha were in the house. At about 1:00 P.M., Anguri bai made a complaint that the Appellant always sits outside her house, and he should not sit there. When he asked his son (Appellant) as to why he sits in front of the house of others, then the Appellant became angry and assaulted Phuliabai (mother of Appellant and wife of Complainant) twice by lathi. Blood started oozing out from her head and both ears. When the complainant tried to save her, the Appellant started assaulting the complainant also. Lathi blows were given thrice as a result he has sustained multiple injuries on his head. Lathi blow was given on left thigh as well as on his shoulders. When he tried to catch hold the lathi, then he sustained injuries on his thumb. His daughter-in-law Asha shouted to come inside the room and accordingly, he and his daughter-in-law locked themselves inside the room. After some time, the Appellant went away. Thereafter, the complainant came out and found that his wife had already expired and her dead body is lying there. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The complainant was sent for medical examination. The post-mortem of the dead body was got done. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant was arrested. The police after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the Appellant for offence under Sections 302,307 of IPC.

3. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302,307 of IPC

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

5. The prosecution examined Anguribai (P.W.1), Daujaram (P.W.2), Ashabai (P.W.3), Ramprasad (P.W.4), Ishaq Khan (P.W.5), Sultan Khan (P.W.6), Dr. Shambhudayal Barua (P.W.7), Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.8), Gahlaut Semliya (P.W.9), Devendra Singh Kushwaha (P.W.10) and Yudhishthar Singh (P.W.11).

6. The Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

7. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence convicted the Appellant for the above mentioned offence.

8. Challenging the judgment passed by the Court below, the Appellant has not challenged the findings that the deceased Phuliya bai died a homicidal death, and also not challenged the findings that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but submitted that the Appellant was lunatic at the time of incident, and his treatment was also done during the pendency of the Trial, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

9. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that there is nothing on record to suggest that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law

10. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

11. Although the Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the fact that the death of Phuliya Bai was homicidal in nature, but in order to consider the defence of unsoundness of mind, this Court is of the considered opinion, that it would be appropriate to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased Phuliya Bai.

12. Dr. Shambhudayal Barua (P.W.7) has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Phuliya Bai and found following injuries o