Bombay High Court
Tikaram Krishnalal Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 February, 2013
Author: V.K. Tahilramani
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, S.S. Jadhav
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2007
Tikaram Krishnalal Pandey ]
Convict No. C-14748, ]
Y.C.P., Pune 6. ] Appellant
(Org. Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent
Mr. D.G. Khamkar, Advocate appointed for the Appellant
Mrs. Shilpa Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ
DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :-
1. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him as follow:-
Pg 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc Convicted Under Sentenced to Section 302 of IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 500/- IDRI for 1 month.
Section 324 of IPC To suffer RI for 2 months and to pay a fine of ` 100/- IDRI for 7 days.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:
(i) Deceased Murugan and his wife PW 2 Mallika were working as labourers in Mumbai. They were residing on the footpath of Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai. During daytime, Murugan and his wife Mallika used to do labour work and at night, they used to sleep on the footpath of Carter Road. Many other persons were also sleeping on the footpath of Carter Road including PW 3 Arjunan and PW 4 Shekhar.
(ii) The incident occurred on the night between 18.01.2003 and 19.01.2003. At about 02.00 a.m., PW 2 Mallika got up and shouted as she was hit by a stone. When she woke up Pg 2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc from sleep, she saw a person. She also saw that person hitting her husband with a stone. Her husband became unconscious. On hearing shouts, all the persons who were sleeping on the pavement gathered around PW 2 Mallika. The person who hit Mallika and her husband Murugan with a stone, started running away from the spot, however, he was chased and caught by other pavement dwellers. On hearing shouts, Police also reached the spot. The Police helped PW 2 Mallika to take her husband to the hospital in an auto rickshaw. The police also apprehended the person i.e the appellant who assaulted Mallika and her husband Murugan. The appellant was also taken to the hospital by the police.
(iii) In the hospital, dying declaration of Murugan came to be recorded by the police. PW 8 PSI Satam recorded dying declaration of Murugan. The said dying declaration was treated as F.I.R. Thereafter, investigation commenced. Murugan died on the next day. His body was sent for postmortem. During postmortem, the following injuries were observed:-
Pg 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc " Haematoma in left parito temporal region.
Fissured fracture left parito temporal bone 8 c.m. long extending upto middle cranial fossa. Fracture of temporal bone also seen.
Cerebral oedema and congestion. Subdural haematoma in left / right parito temporal region. Contusion left temporal region."
As per the postmortem notes, the cause of death was due to traumatic fracture of skull and subdural haematoma due to blunt force (unnatural). In the opinion of the Doctor, if a person is sleeping on the footpath and if he is hit by a big stone like article No. 3, the injuries sustained by Murugan are possible. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of Murugan and Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to PW 2 Mallika. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. His further defence is that he was not sane at the Pg 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc time when the incident took place, hence, his case would be covered under Section 84 of IPC. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above. Hence, this appeal.
4 We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant did assault Murugan with stone Article 3 and he also assaulted PW 2 Mallika with a stone.
5. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of PW 2 Mallika, PW 3 Arjunan and PW 4 Shekhar who were the eye witnesses to the incident. PW 2 Mallika has stated that in January 2003, she was residing along with her husband on the pavement.
Many persons used to sleep on the pavement by their side, hence, Pg 5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc she knew them. She and her husband Murugan worked as labourers. They left their place i.e the pavement at about 08.00 a.m. and used to return back at about 07.00 p.m. They used to sleep on the pavement. On the day of the incident, at about 02.00 a.m., Mallika got up and shouted as she was hit by a stone.
When she woke up from sleep, she saw a person. She also saw that person hitting her husband with a stone. Her husband became unconscious.
ig On hearing shouts, all the persons who were sleeping on the pavement gathered around Mallika. The person who hit Mallika and her husband Murugan with a stone, started running away from the spot, however, he was chased and caught by other pavement dwellers. On hearing shouts, Police also reached the spot. The Police helped PW 2 Mallika to take her husband to hospital in an auto rickshaw. The police also apprehended the person i.e the appellant who assaulted Mallika and her husband Murugan.
6. PW 3 Arjunan was also residing on the pavement at Carter Road where PW 2 Mallika and her husband Murugan were Pg 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc residing. He has stated that on 18.01.2003, he returned home from work at about 07.00 to 08.00 p.m. After having meals, he went to sleep. At about 02.00 a.m., he heard shouts of Mallika, hence, he woke up. He saw that the appellant hit Murugan with a stone. Thereafter, the appellant started running. PW 4 Shekhar and Munian chased the appellant and caught hold of him.
7. PW 4 Shekhar was also sleeping on the pavement at Carter Road. On the night between 18.01.2003 and 19.01.2003 at about 02.00 a.m., he heard shouts of Mallika, hence, he woke up. He saw one person hit Murugan with a stone. The said person then started running away. This witness and Munian started chasing him i.e the appellant. Then they caught hold of the appellant.
Thus, the evidence of these three witnesses shows that the appellant assaulted Murugan on the head with stone Article 13. In addition, the evidence of PW 2 Mallika shows that the appellant assaulted her with a stone. Nothing has been elicited in cross-
examination of any of these three witnesses so as to disbelieve Pg 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc their testimony. The medical evidence is also consistent with the prosecution case. Thus, Mallika was assaulted on the head with a stone by the appellant and the appellant also hit Murugan with a stone.
8. Mr. Khamkar, the learned appointed Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC as he is entitled to get the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. To support his submission, he placed reliance on the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW 9 PI Hujband and PW 7 Dr. Patil.
PW 9 PI Hujband has stated that on the very same day that the accused was apprehended, he was sent for medical examination, mainly because, he was found violent and he apparently looked like a lunatic. The appellant was referred to PW 7 Dr. Patil who was attached to the Police Hospital at Nagpada.
PW 7 Dr. Patil has stated that on 19.01.2003, the appellant was brought before him by the police stating that he had some Pg 8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc psychiatric problem. PW 7 Dr. Patil asked the police to get the appellant on the next day i.e on 20.01.2003 which was a day the psychiatric specialist visited the hospital. Accordingly, on 20.01.2003, 23.01.2003 and on 30.01.2003, Dr. Patil along with another Doctor examined the patient i.e the appellant. On the basis of these three sittings, a certificate was issued relating to the medical condition of the appellant. In the certificate, it was stated that on medical examination, it was revealed that the appellant is suffering from delusions and persecutory ideas with no insight in his illness. Dr. Patil has also observed that on questioning the patient i.e the appellant, the appellant stated "I have killed people as they are spies of our country" and therefore, the appellant feels that he has done good deed. The appellant also added that the Doctors are restraining him from killing other spies. According to Dr. Patil and other Doctors, the appellant was a case of paranoid schizophrenia and he was not mentally sane.
Accordingly, certificate Exh. 15 came to be issued. The certificate dated 19.02.2003 shows that on mental examination, the appellant was found suffering from delusions and persecutory Pg 9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc ideas with no insight in his illness. In short, the appellant is suffering from mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia) and is "not mentally sane". Noting dated 20.01.2003 also shows that the appellant was not mentally sane. On that day, the appellant was examined. The Doctor had noted that the appellant does not feel that he is ill. He does not feel that he has done anything wrong.
On 23.01.2003, the appellant was examined, no change was found in his mental condition. On that day, the appellant stated that foreigners are spoiling our country by spying and sending information. He admitted killing a person by hitting with a stone, however, he did not feel that he had done anything wrong. The Doctor opined on that day that the appellant was not aware of the consequences of his act. On 30.01.2003, when the appellant was examined by the Doctors, they found that there was no change in his mental condition. They found that delusions are constant.
The appellant was telling that they are not allowing him to kill the spies. Thus, the evidence of PW 9 PI Hujband who is the Investigating Officer in the present case as well as the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil who was working in Police Hospital at Nagpada Pg 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc shows that the appellant was not sane on 19.01.2003 i.e the day of the incident and even thereafter.
Based on the evidence of PW 9 PI Hujband and the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that at the time of the incident, the appellant was suffering from mental illness and due to the mental disturbance, the appellant caused injuries to PW 2 Mallika and Murugan by assaulting them with a stone.
9. Looking to the evidence of PW 9 PI Hujband and PW 7 Dr. Patil, it is clear that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and that he was not mentally sane. The medical papers which have been brought on record by PW 7 Dr. Patil clearly show that the appellant was not aware of the nature and consequences of his act or that he has done anything wrong or contrary to law. The only aspect now to be considered is the defence of the insanity of the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially that of PW 7 Dr. Patil clearly shows that the appellant was suffering from mental illness on the Pg 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc day of the incident and even thereafter.
10. The burden to prove that the accused was of unsound mind and as a result thereof he was incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of his acts is on the accused. Section 84 of IPC is one of the provision in Chapter IV I.P.C. which deals with "General Exceptions". That section provides that 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. The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of S. 84 lies upon the accused under S. 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the said section, the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. (Illustration (a) to S. 105 is as follows) :
"(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act.
The burden of proof is on A."
Pg 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc The question whether the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances bringing his case within the purview of S. 84 will have to be examined from the totality of circumstances. The unsoundness of mind as a result whereof one is incapable of knowing consequences is a state of mind of a person which, ordinarily can be inferred from the circumstances.
11. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions :
(1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not sane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.
Pg 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc (3) Even if the accused is not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof, resting on the prosecution was not discharged.
12. The circumstances that stand proved in this case in relation to the defence of the appellant of lunacy are that :
a)On the day of the incident, the Investigating Officer PW 9 PI Hujband referred the patient i.e the appellant for medical examination, mainly because, he was found violent and apparently, looked like a lunatic;
b)The evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil who examined the patient on the day of the incident i.e on 19.01.2003 and even thereafter till 30.01.2003 shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was not found mentally sane. Dr. Patil found that the Pg 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc appellant was suffering from delusions and persecutory ideas with no insight in his illness;
c)The medical papers relating to examination of the appellant which has been deposed to by PW 7 Dr. Patil show that the appellant was not aware about the consequences. This means that the appellant was not aware of the nature and consequences of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law;
d)The appellant did not even thereafter feel that the act done by him was contrary to law, which is seen from the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil and the medical papers which show that the appellant did not feel that he had done anything wrong;
e)After the incident on the very same day, the appellant was sent for medical examination in relation to his mental condition. The appellant told Dr. Patil that he had killed people as they are spies of our country and on account of this, the appellant feels that he had done a good deed. The appellant even told the Doctors who examined his mental condition that they are restraining him from killing other spies. Thus, this conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident also shows that Pg 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc in all probability, the mental condition of the appellant was not sane at the time of the incident;
f)There was no motive from the appellant to assault Mallika or to assault Murugan.
13. In the present case, motive has not been brought on record by the prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was any enmity between the appellant and the deceased or even the injured. None of the witnesses have stated that the appellant had any grudge against the injured or the deceased or any feeling of ill will of any kind whatsoever. In the present case, motive is not the only aspect but its absence assumes importance in the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record which shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia on the day of the incident. The evidence on record shows that on the day of the incident, when the appellant was examined by the Doctors, he was found to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He had delusions and persecutory ideas with no insight in his illness.
From this, an inference can reasonably be drawn that the appellant was under paranoid delusions at the time that he Pg 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc committed the offence. From all the evidence on record, it can be inferred that at the time of the incident, the appellant was suffering from mental illness. Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 of IPC. There is enough evidence to assume that at the time of the incident, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law by reason of unsoundness of mind and thus, he is entitled to get benefit of Section 84 of IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC as well as Section 324 of IPC cannot be sustained. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER i.The appeal is allowed.
ii.Judgment and order dated 03.07.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC is set aside. The appellant is Pg 17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
2. cri apeal 237-07.doc acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.
iii.The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
iv.Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellant is lodged and to the appellant-
original accused.
v.Writ of Order be expedited.
[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J ] [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J ] jfoanz vkacsjdj Pg 18 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::