Jharkhand High Court
Md. Imtiyaz Alam vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 257
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra, B.B. Mangalmurti
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 15th of February, 2007, and Order
of sentence dated 17th of February, 2007, passed by the Sessions Judge,
Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2004.)
Md. Imtiyaz Alam
@ Md. Imtiyaz ....... ...... Appellant
-Versus -
State of Jharkhand ...... ...... Respondent
-------------------
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
-------------------
For the Appellant : M/s Nilesh Kumar,
Abhishek Prasad &
Asmita Srivastava, Advocates.
For the State : Mr.Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
For the Informant : M/s R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
& Tarun Kumar, Advocate.
-------------------
C.A.V. on : 28.8.2018 Pronounced on : 05.09.2018
H.C. Mishra, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
Informant as also learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 15th of February, 2007, and Order of sentence dated 17 th of February, 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2004, whereby the present accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the said offence.
3. It may be stated that along with the present appellant, four other accuseds had also faced the trial, out of whom, three were acquitted and one accused Md. Irfan @ Dablu was also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, who had filed a separate appeal, being Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 318 of 2007 and the same was allowed separately, in view of the fact that the said accused was not sent up for trial after investigation of the case, and only after the Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -2- evidence of all the material witnesses, he was summoned to face the trial under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, but those material witnesses were not examined afresh on recall, rather some of them were only put to further cross-examination. So far as the present accused is concerned, the charge-sheet was submitted against him and he had faced the trial from its very beginning and all the witnesses have been examined in the presence of the present appellant.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Md. Shamsher Alam @ Tinku, the brother of the deceased Naushad @ Rinku, recorded in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, on 14.6.2003 at 12.30 A.M. in the night. In the fardbeyan, it is stated that on 13.6.2003 at about 3.30 P.M., there was some altercation between Irfan (the brother of the present accused) and the deceased, which was pacified. Again at about 4.30 P.M., the father of the appellant along with his three sons, including the appellant, took up a quarrel with the deceased brother of the informant, while the deceased was at his hotel, and that quarrel was also pacified, but Irfan again returned back and had threatened of dire consequences in the night. In the night at about 10.30 P.M., the present accused Md. Imtiyaz went to the hotel of the informant and assaulted one staff of the hotel, asking about the brother of the informant. In the meantime, the brother of the informant came there and Md. Imtiyaz chased him with a bhujali, used for slaughtering goats, and at a distance of about 10-20 yards near a petrol pump, he was apprehended by Irfan, and Imtiyaz assaulted him by bhujali repeatedly, due to which, the deceased was badly injured and he fell down. The family members of the deceased tried to save him, but they were also threatened by bhujali and chased away by the accused. His brother Rinku was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case No. 243 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 1397 of 2003 was instituted, for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet only against the present accused.
5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -3- Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.
6. P.W.-6 Md. Shamsher Alam @ Tinku is the informant of the case and the brother of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 13.6.2003. There was a quarrel between his brother Naushad Ali @ Rinku and Md. Irfan, which was pacified. At about 4.30 P.M., while his brother was sitting on the counter of their Calcutta Hotel, the present accused along with his father and other brothers came and started assaulting his brother. Said quarrel was also pacified, but Irfan again came there and went away threatening and abusing his brother in filthy languages. In the night at about 10.30 P.M., the accused Md. Imtiyaz came and asked about the whereabouts of his brother, assaulting one employee of the hotel. He was armed with a bhujali, used to slaughter goats. In the meantime, Naushad @ Rinku came there and Imtiyaz chased him with bhujali and at a distance of about 10-20 yards, near the petrol pump Md. Irfan, who was standing there, apprehended Naushad @ Rinku and Md. Imtiyaz assaulted him by bhujali repeatedly, injuring him. In the meantime, the informant, and other family members also reached there and they tried to save him, but they were also chased. They took the deceased to hospital on a rickshaw, but his brother was declared dead. His statement was recorded by the police in the Sadar Hospital, on which, he has identified his signature, and the fardbeyan was marked Exhibit-2. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his family is the owner of the Calcutta Hotel, which runs in the ground floor and on the upper floor of the same hotel, the family was residing. The family members used to sit on the counter by turns. At the time of occurrence, his brother was taking cold drink in the neighbouring shop, as it was summer season, when he was chased by the accused. His brother also raised alarm, whereupon all the family members rushed there. They saw that the accused assaulted the deceased and he fell down and the accused had made about 10 assaults by bhujali. His father went on scooter to the Police Station and one police officer came along with him. While they were trying to save the Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -4- accused, they were also chased by the accused brandishing the bhujali. While they were bringing the deceased to hospital on rickshaw, the accused was putting hurdles to that also. He has also stated that the accused was arrested at the place of occurrence itself. The deceased was declared dead in the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was suffering from any mental illness. In his cross-examination, upon recall, again he has denied the suggestion that the accused was chasing them as an insane person.
7. P.W.-1 Shaukat Ali is the father of the deceased, P.W.-2 Sabra Khatoon is the mother of the deceased and P.W.-3 Shamsheri Begum is the sister of the deceased, and these witnesses have also supported the prosecution case as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, more or less in the same manner as stated by the informant, clearly stating that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by bhujali repeatedly in their presence. They have also stated that they tried to save the deceased, but he threatened them with bhujali and chased them. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 Shaukat Ali has stated that upon seeing the occurrence, he went to the Police Station, which was situated at about 100 yards from the place of occurrence, and had brought one A.S.I. along with him, but the said A.S.I. was also chased by the accused. He has stated that there was no enmity with the accused and he has also denied the suggestion that the accused was mentally ill. In his cross-examination, on recall, he has stated that upon the alarm raised by his son, they came from his house, situated in the upper floor of the hotel and by that time, the accused was chasing the deceased. P.W.-2 Sabra Khatoon has also stated in her cross-examination that her husband went to the Police Station and came with a police officer, but he was also chased by the accused. She has stated that the accused kept chasing the persons, who tried to intervene for about 45 minutes and when the deceased was being taken to hospital on a rickshaw, he had also made assaults on rickshaw. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused was an insane person. Similarly, P.W.-3 Shamsheri Begum has also stated that in her cross-examination that there was no enmity with the accused. The accused was not allowing any one to come near him threatening them with bhujali. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused was a mentally ill person.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -5-
8. P.W.-5 Munna Ejaz and P.W.-8 Deep Ranjan have also supported the prosecution case as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, stating that they saw the accused assaulting the deceased, causing his death, but they have stated that the accused was behaving like a mentally ill person. P.W.-5 has stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused was behaving as a mentally ill person and when the deceased was brought to hospital, he had made assaults on the rickshaw also. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that the family members of the deceased came at the place of occurrence after about one hour and in the meantime, the accused used to lie down along with the dead body, at times he used to whistle, at times he used to sing. Earlier also he used to get fits of mental illness, for which he was treated and he could be apprehended by the police with much difficulty. Similarly, P.W.-8 Deep Ranjan has also stated that the accused was behaving like an insane person and after assaulting the deceased, he used to lie down with the dead body and was behaving like a mentally ill person. This witness has however, stated in his cross-examination that the accused was acting (natak karte raha) like an insane person. He has also stated that the family members of the deceased came at the place of occurrence after about half an hour.
9. P.W.-4 Md. Sirajul Islam is a hearsay witness, who had intervened in the quarrel in the evening. He has not stated anything about the occurrence of murder.
10. P.W.-9 Abdul Rajjak and P.W.-10 Jamaluddin are the seizure list witnesses of the seizure of the blood stained bhujali and blood stained clothes of the accused, and they had put their signatures on the seizure list, which were marked Exhibits- 3 and 3/1 on their identification. They have also not stated anything about the occurrence.
11. P.W.-7 is Dr. Rajesh Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 14.6.2003, and found the following injuries on the dead body:-
1. Sharp cutting wound (sickle shaped) Left lower face-
2"x ½" x muscle deep.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -6-
2. Sharp cutting wound 1½" x ½"x muscle deep left lower pre auricular region of face.
3. Sharp cutting wound 4" x 2" x brain deep over back of right head with underline fracture of right occipital bone with haematoma of brain.
4. Sharp cutting wound 1½" x ¼" x muscle deep right lower chest.
5. Sharp cutting wound 1" x ½" x muscle deep left inner side of elbow region.
6. Sharp cutting wound 1¼" x ½" x peritoniel cavity with omentum out of abdomen.
7. Sharp cutting injury ½" x ¼" x muscle deep left gluteal region.
8. Sharp cutting injury- 2" x ½" x brain deep with underline fracture of left temporal bone and haematoma of brain.
Internal:-
Lungs-pale and intact. Heart-empty. Stomach pale and contained flour, vegetables and debris. Small intestine, Large intestine, Lever, Spleen- all pale. Bladder was empty.
This witness has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Injury Nos. 3, 8 and 6 were grievous and were responsible for death in due course either singly or jointly. All injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon, may be by bhujali. Death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to above mentioned injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-2.
12. P.W.-11 is Sajeev Kumar Das, the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the statement of one Md. Ziajul Hasan under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-4.
13. P.W.-12 is Satyadeo Singh and the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 14.6.2003 he was posted as A.S.I. at Sadar Police Station, Hazaribag. At about 1.30 A.M., in the night, the fardbeyan of the informant was received at the Police Station, on the basis of which, the FIR Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -7- was lodged. He has proved the endorsements on the fardbeyan, which were marked Exhibit-1 Series and the fardbeyan was earlier marked Exhibit-1. He has also proved the formal FIR, which was marked Exhibit-5. He has stated that he reached the place of occurrence at about 2.00 A.M., in the night and recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence, which he has detailed, which it is near the petrol pump and the blood stains were also found there. He has stated that Calcutta Hotel of the informant was situated at a distance of about 40 yards from the place of occurrence and at a distance of about 30 yards, the house of the accused was situated. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and at about 3.00 A.M., he arrested the accused Md. Imtiyaz from his house and also seized a blood stained bhujali and his blood stained clothes in presence of the witnesses. He has proved the seizure list, which was marked Exhibit-6 and has stated that copy of the same was also given to the accused. He has also produced the bhujali and blood stained clothes in the Court, which were marked material Exhibits- I and II series. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased at the Sadar Hospital, in the morning, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-8. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. He recorded the statements of the other witnesses also and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused Md. Imtiyaz, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the charge-sheet was submitted only against the sole accused and had not found any evidence against the other accused. He has stated in his cross-examination that he had arrested the accused after about 6-7 hours, but he had not mentioned in the case diary as to why the accused had not concealed the blood stained bhujali and his blood stained clothes by that time. He had not sent the blood stained weapon and clothes for forensic examination. He had no knowledge about any letter written from the jail about the mental condition of the accused and he has denied the suggestion that he was concealing this fact knowingly. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. He has also stated that he was not called to the place of occurrence by Md. Shaukat Ali.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -8-
14. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the knowledge about any evidence against him. He has also stated that he has been taking medicines. Some documents were proved and two witnesses were examined by the defence.
15. D.W.-1 is Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rajan, who was posted as Medical Officer at Central Jail, Hazaribag. He has stated that on 20.6.2003, he had submitted a report to the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribag, stating that this accused had attempted to commit murder of one prisoner in the jail, thereafter, he was put in a cell, in which he had attempted to commit suicide. He was also informed that the accused was under the treatment of Dr. P.K. Choudhary, Neuro Psychiatrist, who had advised some medicines to him. He has produced the photostat copy of his report, which was marked-K for identification. He has stated that the accused was admitted in the hospital as a mentally upset patient, and a Medical Board was also constituted, which advised some medicines, and the accused was advised to be referred to RINPAS. The photo copy of the report of the Medical Board was marked K/A for identification. The accused was also sent to RINPAS and the photo copy of the prescription of the RINPAS was also produced by him, which was marked K/B for identification, in which, the medicines were prescribed. On 30.3.2004, he was found to be mentally fit. He was admitted again in the hospital on 17.2.2006 and photostat copy of the bed head ticket was marked K/C for identification. He has stated that one Doctor from RINPAS used to visit the jail once in a month for treating the patients in the jail and he had treated the accused also on various dates. On 26.9.2006, he was found to be fit by the Doctor of the RINPAS. Photo copy of the last prescription was marked K/D for identification. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he is not specialized to treat the mentally ill patients and he had no knowledge about the mental condition of the accused prior to 18.6.2003. He had only given some sleeping pills to the accused, which is usually given to the other patients also in the jail.
16. D.W.-2 Md. Mustaq Alam is brother of the accused and he has stated that his brother was mentally ill and he used to assault the family members and he was under treatment of Dr. P.K. Choudhary. He has proved the prescription of Dr. P.K. Choudhary, which was marked Exhibit-A. He Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007 -9- has stated that on 13.6.2003, he was mentally ill and he was kept confined in the house for being sent to Ranchi, but he managed to slip away from the house. He was searched, but he could not be found and, thereafter, he was arrested by the police. He had given application in the Court for treatment of his brother in mental hospital, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-B. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has a business of selling mutton and his brother Imtiyaz also used to do the same business. On the date of occurrence also, Imtiyaz was doing the same business, but again he has stated that his brother was mentally ill.
17. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court below as aforesaid.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as there is ample evidence to show that at the time of occurrence, the accused was suffering from mental illness and as such, his case comes under the general exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the direct evidence on record that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased giving several blows of bhujali, causing his death and this evidence is also supported by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Rajesh Kumar and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-2, learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submissions only claiming exemption under Section 84 of the I.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel that P.W.-5 Munna Ezaj and P.W.-8 Deep Ranjan, who are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, have also stated that the accused was behaving like a mentally ill person and this evidence is also fully corroborated by the medical evidence of D.W.-1 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rajan, the Jail Doctor, who has stated about the mental illness of the accused. It is submitted by learned counsel that even in the evidence of P.W.-2 Sabra Khatoon, the mother of the deceased, it has come that the accused was assaulting the rickshaw also, while the deceased was being taken to hospital, which clearly shows that the mental condition of the accused was not proper. Evidence of the other material witnesses showing that the accused was not allowing any one to come near him and was brandishing bhujali, also shows the mental condition of the accused, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
- 10 -
though these witnesses have denied the suggestion that the accused was suffering from any mental illness. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748, as also upon the decisions of this High Court in the State of Jharkhand Vs. Lakhan Rai, reported in 2007 Cri L J 2410 (Jhar) and in the State of Jharkhand Vs. Madras Nayak, reported in 2003 (1) East Cr C 607 (Jhr), in support his contention that if the accused is found to be mentally ill at the time of occurrence, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration his mental illness, the accused-appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and he ought to have been acquitted of the charge.
19. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer and have submitted that the case of the appellant cannot come under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the fact that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was suffering from such mental illness, so as to be incapable of knowing the nature of his act or to understand what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, and as such, the case of the appellant shall not come under the general exception of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that all the material witnesses have clearly stated that this accused had assaulted the deceased by giving repeated blows of bhujali and the oral evidence of the witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, who had found eight incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsels, accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court below, and this appeal is fit to be dismissed.
20. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the material witnesses including the family members, stating Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
- 11 -
that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased brutally by bhujali, causing his death. Even P.W.-5 Munna Ezaj and P.W.-8 Deep Ranjan, who are independent witnesses, have supported this fact as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, though, these witnesses have stated that the accused was behaving like a person of unsound mind at the time of occurrence. In the interest of justice, we have looked into the case diary to find out whether any such statement was given by these witnesses before the police or not, and we find from the case diary that no such statement was given by them before the police, rather they had fully supported the case as eyewitnesses. As such, this part of their evidences are improvements upon their earlier versions before the police. Accordingly, their evidence that at the time of occurrence, the accused was behaving like a person of unsound mind, just cannot be believed. The evidence of D.W.-1 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rajan, who has produced the photo copies of some medical documents, not duly proved and only marked K series for identification, shows that the accused was also treated by one Dr. P.K. Choudhary, he was also treated at RINPAS, and by the visiting Doctor of RINPAS in jail itself, but he has not stated about the nature of the mental illness of the accused in his evidence. Even in the prescription of Dr. P.K. Choudhary, under whose treatment, the accused was undergoing, proved as Exhibit-A by D.W.-2 Md. Mustaq Alam, the brother of the accused, there is no mention about the illness of the accused. Only some medicines have been prescribed therein, without disclosing the illness of the accused. We have also looked into the photo copies of the documents produced by D.W.-1 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rajan, which were marked K Series, but none of these documents, including the bed head ticket of the jail hospital, disclose anything about the illness of the accused. The nature of the mental illness of the accused is mentioned in the report of the Medical Board, submitted to the Civil Surgeon, photo copy which has been marked K/A for identification, which only shows that the accused was feeling guilty as he was mentally confused, but his mental state was normal. Thus there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the fact that at the time of occurrence, the accused was suffering from such mental illness that he was incapable to understand the nature of his act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. There is complete lack of evidence in this regard.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
- 12 -
21. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:-
"Section 84. Act of a person of unsound mind.--Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."
A plain reading of this provision, clearly shows that for claiming the exemption, the accused has to prove the fact that for the reason of the unsoundness of his mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The law is well settled in this regard that the accused cannot be exempted from criminal liability ipso facto, rather it is for the defence to prove that his case comes under the general exception of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and if the defence fails to prove this fact, the accused cannot be given the benefit of this exception. This position in law is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surendra Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 495, as follows:-
"11. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer, are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Penal Code."
(Emphasis supplied).
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
- 13 -
Again relying upon the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has held in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 602, as follows:-
"19. From the abovestated principles, it is clear that a person alleged to be suffering from any mental disorder cannot be exempted from criminal liability ipso facto. The onus would be on the accused to prove by expert evidence that he is suffering from such mental disorder or mental condition that he could not be expected to be aware of the consequences of his act. Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability." (Emphasis supplied).
22. In Shera Ram's case (supra), the accused was found to be suffering from epileptic attacks. He had stated this in his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and had proved his illness also by examining the Doctors, who had proved the illness of the accused coming under general exception and only then that benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code was given to the accused. But in the present case, we find that there is complete lack of any evidence to show the actual mental illness of the accused. All the prescriptions only show that some medicines prescribed to the accused and D.W.-1 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rajan has clearly stated that the medicines, that he had prescribed were only the tranquilizers and sleeping pills. Indeed one such document shows that he was only feeling guilty, he was mentally confused, but his mental state was normal. Even the evidence of D.W.-2 Md. Mustaq Alam clearly shows that the accused was running the business of mutton and even in his cross-examination, the truth came out, that at the time of occurrence also he was running the business, though he has tried to retract from his statement.
23. On the basis of the evidence on record we find that the defence has completely failed to bring the case of the appellant under the general exception of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the prosecution Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 2007
- 14 -
has been able to bring home the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court.
24. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 15th of February, 2007, and Order of sentence dated 17th of February, 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellant Md. Imtiyaz Alam @ Md. Imtiyaz for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody undergoing the sentence.
25. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of the Judgment.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) B.B. Mangalmurti, J.:-
(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated the 5th of September, 2018.
NAFR/ Amitesh