Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 August, 1972
Conduct of the appellant to bolt the door from inside before commission
of the offence indicates prior preparation with regard to the crime. Had
he committed the act during a bout of insanity, the door of the kitchen
would not have been bolted from inside. Mere lack of motive or no effort
to run away in the absence of convincing medical evidence regarding
mental ailment cannot invariably lead to the inference of unsoundness
12
of mind. Reference may be made to Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs. The
State of Maharashtra2.
Devidas Loka Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 July, 2018
31. Reference in Devidas Loka Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra3 is
misconceived. In the said case prosecution had not disputed the prior
medical history of the appellant. In that backdrop, the Apex Court held
burden was cast on the prosecution to establish that the accused with
a prior history of medical illness was conscious of the culpable act. No
convincing evidence has been placed before the trial court or before this
Court that the appellant was labouring from prior medical ailment or
any medical illness during trial or thereafter.
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nanjibhai Dahyabhai Thakore vs The Official Liquidator Gujrat Steel ... on 4 February, 2019
"7. 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 insane, when he committed the crime, in
the sense laid down by Section 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. (3) Even if the accused was 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."
1