Back
1971 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9
ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
D. M. Sen, J
Kusnu Murari v. State
Crl. A. No. 89(J)/68
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that the accused's plea of insanity was unsupported by evidence, upholding the presumption of sanity.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Burden of proof regarding insanity - The accused was charged with murdering his wife by assaulting her with an iron rod. The primary defence was insanity under Section 84. The prosecution evidence established intent, with eyewitnesses identifying the accused in the act of assault and proving the cause of death through medical evidence. The defence failed to present any evidence of insanity, and the court concluded that the presumption of sanity was not sufficiently rebutted under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 342 - The court examined whether the accused could establish reasonable doubt regarding sanity, which he failed to do. The conviction was affirmed based on the evidence presented. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a conviction of life imprisonment for murder where the appellant allegedly assaulted his wife with an iron rod. Eyewitnesses confirmed the assault and the medical evidence indicated the cause of death was consistent with the injuries inflicted.
Findings of Court:
The evidence did not support claims of the accused’s insanity at the time of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge’s conviction was affirmed based on solid eyewitness testimony and medical evidence indicating mens rea.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused was insane at the time of the offence, which the court determined he was not.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution proved its case of murder beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of insanity was insufficiently substantiated as the defence provided no evidence to the contrary.
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction and circumstances surrounding the offense. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evidence of eyewitnesses confirms the assault and establishes intent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court analysis of the insanity defense and its proof requirements. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. final ruling and dismissal of appeal. (Para 15 , 16) |
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under S.302, Penal Code passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur.
2. The case for the prosecution was that Srimati Sukurmoni was the wife of accused Kusnu Murari. On 9-7-67 at about mid - night the accused assaulted his wife with an iron rod. Alarm being raised, P.Ws. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Dwarika Prasad and Satrughna Tanti came and found the accused assaulting his wife. They caught hold of the accused, snatched away the iron rod from his hand and tied him and thereafter the line Chowkidar was informed, who in turn informed the garden authorities.
3. The first information report was lodged by Haran Chandra Bhattacharjee, Head Clerk of Bisakupi Tea Garden. Police registered a case under S.302, Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge - sheet under S.302, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session to stand his trial under S.302, Penal Code. Before the Sessions Court also the accused was charged under S.302 Penal Code.
4. The defence case was that the accused was insane at the time of occurrence and that he did not know what he did.
5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and tendered the evidence of the doctor who held the post mortem examination. The defence did not examine any witness. Since the accused pleaded insanity, the learned Sessions Judge examined the jail doctor as Court witness.
6. P.W. 2 Ganesh Prasad Singh stated that on bearing hulla at about 13 P.M. at night on the date of occurrence be woke up, came out of his house and saw that the accused was assaulting his wife with an iron rod outside the house by the side of the fencing. His house is adjacent to the house of the accused. As it was dark outside, he brought a lamp from inside and saw the accused assaulting. P.W 2, Dwarika Prasad and Satrughna then caught hold of the accused, bound him to a post and then called some people of the line and sent the injured to the hospital. Being questioned the accused did not say anything P.W. 2 identified material Ext. 1, the iron rod.
7. P.W. 3 Dwarika Prasad stated that his house was by the side of that of the accused. On the night of occurrence on hearing cries of the children from the house of the accused, he got up and came there and found that the accused was assaulting his wife with an iron rod by the side of the fencing. He could not dare to go near him alone, so he called P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 Satrughna Tanti and all of them caught hold of the accused and snatched away the iron rod. There was injury over the body of Sukurmoni. The injured was then sent to the hospital. He identified the iron rod which is material Ext. 1.
8. P.W. 4 Satrughna Tanti corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3.
9. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are found to be eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W. 4 arrived at the place of occurrence when P.Ws. 2 and 3 were snatching the iron rod from the hand of the accused.
10. From the evidence of P.W. 8, the City Inspector of Police it is found that Sukurmoni was found dead in Bisakupi Garden Hospital. The evidence on record shows that after Sukurmoni was assaulted by the accused, she was taken to the garden hospital where the expired.
11. From the evidence of Dr. D.N. Bhuyan (P.W. 1 before the committing Court), who held the post mortem examination, the following injuries were found on the body of Sukurmoni :
(1) Stitched wound 21/2", situated on both frontal region of the scalp, starting 1" above and 1/2" above right ear going transversely.
(2) Stitched wound 4" long, situated at the right temporal region and right parietal
