Back
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Tufan @ Tofan Son Of Dauja Jatav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police Station Indar – Respondent
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 :
| Convicted under Section | Sentence |
| 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 2 months R.I. |
| 307 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 2 months R.I. |
| All sentences shall run concurrently. | |
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
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.
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....
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.
The burden of proof for a defense of insanity under IPC Section 84 lies with the accused, and sufficient evidence must demonstrate unsoundness of mind at the time of the offense.
The accused failed to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence, and motive loses significance in cases based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the mental capacity of the accused at the time of the offense to establish guilt.
The crucial point of time for considering the defense plea of unsoundness of mind is the time when the offense was committed, and the burden of proving unsoundness of mind lies on the accused.
The burden of proof on the defense regarding the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC and the requirement for establishing legal insanity.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
