Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Banothu Bharathi @ Lasya @ Bujji – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangna – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mrs. Monica P. Pole, learned counsel for appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. Vide judgment dated 07.04. 2025 in Sessions Case No.397 of 2022, learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), found the appellant - accused guilty of the offence under Section - 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and accordingly imposed death penalty on her.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and death sentence imposed by learned trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.547 of 2025 , while le
The appellant's actions resulted from paranoid schizophrenia, rendering her incapable of understanding the nature of her act, thus entitling her to acquittal under Section 84 of IPC.
Section 335 Cr.P.C. gives two options to court to deal with persons who are acquitted on ground of mental unsoundness.
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.
The failure to assess the appellant's mental fitness before trial constituted a serious procedural irregularity, necessitating the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
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 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.
(1) Mental insanity of accused – Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to applicability of provision – Mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowi....
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 ....
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 judgment establishes the principle that legal insanity, as defined under Section 84 IPC, can exempt a person from criminal responsibility.
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
Listen Article