Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kantiben W/O. Mulabhai Ranchhodbhai ... on 8 January, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
===================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
====================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KANTIBEN W/O. MULABHAI RANCHHODBHAI KOLI PATEL
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR.L.B.DABHI, APP, for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.03.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Godhara, District Panchmahals in Session case No.259 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined acquitted the respondent-accused for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case pertains to an incident that occurred on 8th August 2000, at around 10:00 a.m., at Dangaria, Taluka Devgadh Baria, District Panchmahals. The respondent-accused, in a fit of anger arising from a dispute over the distribution of property, assaulted her husband Mulabhai, while he was asleep. The respondent- accused used an metal mounted stick to inflict multiple blows on the face and mouth of the deceased, causing fatal injuries and leading to his death. It is alleged that the respondent-accused, with the intention and knowledge of causing death, committed an act punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
2.1 Charge, Exh-2 came to be framed against the respondent- accused, wherein it is alleged that on 8-8-2000 at around 10-00 o'clock at Dangaria Ta. Devagadh Baria, while the husband of the accused was slept, for the reason of refusal to distribute property, the accused in a fit of anger, with the intention and knowledge of causing death, killed her husband, Mulabhai Ranchodbhai, by inflicting fatal blows on his face with an metal mounted stick and thereby, the accused has committed the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned APP has submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned trial judge failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined has acquitted the respondent-accused on flimsy grounds.
3.1 It is submitted that the evidence of PW-2 Amarsinh Raisinh, Exh-7, who was the complainant and nephew of the deceased, along with PW-5 Shanabhai Narsingbhai Patel, Exh-12, and PW-6 Vajesinh Kangabhai, Exh-13, clearly establishes the presence of the accused at the scene of the incident. Their testimonies are consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, including the postmortem report at Exh-6. The trial court erred in disbelieving their evidence based on minor contradictions.
3.2 It is submitted that the testimony of PW-3 Kaliben Mulabhai, Exh-10, who was first wife of the deceased, establishes the last seen together circumstance, which is a critical piece of evidence. PW-3 categorically deposed that he had seen the respondent-accused and the deceased together at their house shortly before the incident occurred. This creates a strong presumption against the respondent- accused, as she was the last person seen with the deceased. The trial court erred in not appreciating this vital link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which directly implicates the respondent- accused in the offence.
3.3 It is submitted that the evidence of the PW-1 Dr. Rameshchandra Kadia, Exh-5, who was medical officer and the postmortem report at Exh-6 corroborate the evidence of the witnesses. The nature of injuries described in the medical report matches the assault described by the witnesses, conclusively linking the respondent-accused to the offence.
Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined 3.4 It is submitted that PW-4 Ratansinh Punjabhai Patel, Exh- 11, deposed that upon reaching the scene after hearing the deceased's screams, he saw the respondent-accused with bloodstains on her hands and holding an metal mounted stick. PW-4 then instructed the respondent-accused to throw the weapon, which she did immediately afterward. This evidence directly links the respondent- accused to the crime by establishing her possession of the weapon and her subsequent action of discarding it. The presence of bloodstains on her hands, combined with her disposal of the weapon, is crucial circumstantial evidence implicating her in the offence, which the trial court failed to properly appreciate.
3.5 It is submitted that the testimony of PW-8 Bhimsinh Nathabhai Bariya, Exh-19, who was the Investigation Officer and PW-7 Babubhai Maganbhai Patel, Exh-14, who was the panch witness supported the prosecution's case. The Investigation Officer deposed regarding the subsequent steps taken in the investigation, while the panch witness corroborated the procedure followed during the seizure and the collection of evidence. Despite this supportive testimony, the trial court erred in not properly considering the evidence presented by these witnesses. Their statements further strengthen the circumstantial case against the respondent-accused, but the trial court's judgment failed to give due weight to their testimonies.
3.6 It is submitted that the prosecution has established the motive for the offence. The ongoing dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding the division of property was the reason for the Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined respondent-accused to assault the deceased. This aspect was ignored by the learned trial judge, despite being a significant factor in proving the case.
3.7 It is submitted that the trial court gave undue emphasis to minor omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It also erred in branding PW-2 as an interested witness merely because he was related to the deceased.
3.8 It is submitted that the findings of the trial court are perverse and speculative. The judgment of acquittal disregards material evidence and ignores the chain of events established by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the appellate court is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal, as laid down in settled precedents by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused has supported the judgment of acquittal submitting that the testimony of PW-2, the nephew of the deceased and the complainant, is unreliable and lacks credibility. PW-2 admitted to being at a well some distance away when the alleged assault occurred. He arrived at the scene only after hearing screams of the deceased. This indicates that PW-2 did not witness the actual assault and is not a credible witness. The trial court rightly observed these inconsistencies and disbelieved PW-2's testimony.
4.1 It is further submitted that PW-2's conduct as an witness is unnatural. As a close family member, PW-2 was expected to intervene and attempt to save the victim. His failure to act in such Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined a manner is inconsistent with normal human behavior, raising serious doubts about his presence during the assault. This aspect was rightly considered by the trial court in discarding PW-2's testimony.
4.2 it is argued that PW-2 had vested interests in implicating the respondent-accused. Evidence on record reveals that PW-2 was not on talking terms with the respondent and desired the deceased's property to benefit another family member, PW-3. This ulterior motive renders PW-2 an interested witness whose testimony is biased and unreliable. The trial court correctly assessed this aspect and refused to rely on PW-2's testimony.
4.3 It is submitted that the testimonies of PWs-3 to 6 lack material corroboration and are inconsistent. Their evidence shows that they arrived at the scene only after the assault was completed and the deceased was found injured. This renders their claims of witnessing the incident baseless. The trial court correctly concluded that their evidence fails to support the prosecution's case.
4.4 It is submitted that the prosecution failed to prove a clear and convincing motive for the alleged offence. The alleged property dispute between the deceased and the respondent-accused was not established as serious or immediate enough to provoke such an act. Motive being a critical factor in this case, its absence further weakens the prosecution's case.
4.5 It is submitted that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law, further strengthened by the trial court's judgment of acquittal. The appellate court should not Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined interfere with such findings unless they are manifestly perverse or unsupported by evidence. In the present case, the trial court's decision is based on a proper and reasonable appreciation of evidence, leaving no scope for interference.
4.6 It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal is in accordance with settled principles of law. Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in, 2024 (8) SCC 149, wherein four principles for interference in an acquittal judgment were laid down. The findings of the trial court do not warrant interference as they are neither perverse nor based on insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondent-accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution relied upon following oral evidence:
Sr. Name of Witnesses Exh.
No. No.
1 Deposition of PW No.1 Dr. Rameshchandra Punamchandra 05
Kadia
2 Deposition of PW No.2 Amarsinh Raisinh 07
3 Deposition of PW No.3 Kaliben Mulabhai 10
4 Deposition of PW No.4 Ratansinh Punjabhai Patel 11
5 Deposition of PW No.5 Shanabhai Narsingbhai Patel 12
6 Deposition of PW No.6 Vajesinh Kangabhai 13
7 Deposition of PW No.7 Babubhai Maganbhai Patel 14
8 Deposition of PW No.8 Bhimsinh Nathabhai Bariya 19
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
5.1 The prosecution also relied upon following documentary
evidence:
Sr. Particular Exh.
No. No.
1 Original complainant 9
2 Inquest panchnama 15
3 Panchnama of the place of the incident 16
4 Panchanama of the physical condition of the accused 17
5 Recovery panchnama of clothes of the deceased 18
6 Office copy of Inquest report 20
7 PM note 06
8 Forwarding Letter of FSL 21
9 FSL report 22
10 Serologycal report 23
11 Receipt of handing over the body of the deceased 24
6. Exh-3 is statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. where accused has taken a stand that he is falsely charged with the offence and has denied the evidence collected.
7. From perusal of record, it appears that PW-2 Amarsinh Raisinh, Exh-7, the complainant and nephew of the deceased, claimed to have arrived at the scene after hearing screams. The court noted that he admitted not being present during the assault, making his testimony hearsay. His failure to intervene despite being a close family member was considered unnatural behavior, casting doubt on Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined his credibility. Additionally, the court found evidence suggesting that Amarsinh had vested interests, including a strained relationship with the accused and potential motives related to a property dispute. As an interested witness, his testimony lacked impartiality. On the other hand, there is some logic in the defense argument regarding evidence of PW-2 is the original first informant of the case, nephew of the deceased and the most crucial eye-witness of the prosecution case. It has come in his evidence that while occurrence had taken place, he was present at a well and was in a process of making animals drink water, is a place according to him one could take 15 to 20 minutes to reach by walking. It is only upon screaming heard by him that he has reached the scene of occurrence noticing the deceased lying in a pool of blood on a cot, meaning thereby he had no occasion to witness the material part of the actual assault and is rightly disbelieved by the Court below as an eye-witness to the case. PW-2 Exh-07 if claiming to be an eye- witness to the prosecution case, a man aged 42 years on the date of occurrence and his closely knitted to the family of the deceased, is expected from him to intervene trying to rescue the deceased from getting assaulted is a normal human conduct of a witness like PW-2 is a normal human conduct of an individual claiming to be an eye-witness to a murder and that too, of his uncle i.e. the deceased in this case, resultantly, even on the point of his natural conduct, the evidence of PW-2 is not inspiring confidence and is again rightly disbelieved by the Court below. PW-2 had one more a reason to implicate respondent-accused in the crime as has come on record through the evidence of PW-3 as on Page-79 about the Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined second wife of the deceased had no male child, it was PW-2 who was taking care of the land and because PW-2 had no talking terms with respondent- orig. accused, it was his wish that the land comes in the pocket of PW-3, is one more a ground on which, PW-2 is branded as an interested witness in securing conviction of the respondent-accused.
8. PW-1 Dr. Rameshchandra Punamchandra Kadia, Exh-5, the medical officer, and PM note Exh-6 conclusively established that the death was homicidal in nature. However, the court observed that while this confirmed the cause of death, it did not establish the identity of the perpetrator. The medical evidence alone could not link the respondent-accused to the crime without corroboration from other evidence or witness testimony.
9. PW-3 Kaliben Mulabhai, Exh-10, the first wife of the deceased, was not present at the scene of the incident. Her testimony was based on what others told her about the incident, making it hearsay and inadmissible as direct evidence. The court found her testimony lacked evidentiary value in proving the accused's involvement. In her cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that Amarsinh, sarpanch, and others had collectively decided how to complain against the accused, which indicates a pre-conceived plan and undermines her impartiality as a witness.
10. The court observed that while PW-3 Kaliben, the first wife of the deceased, testified that she had seen the respondent-accused and the deceased together shortly before the incident, this alone was not sufficient to establish involvement of the respondent-accused in Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined the offence. The court observed that the last seen together theory, although a relevant piece of circumstantial evidence, lacked corroborative support from other direct or circumstantial evidence. Deposition of PW-3 did not provide concrete proof of guilt of the accused, as it was based on a fleeting encounter shortly before the incident and did not directly link the respondent-accused to the fatal assault. Moreover, the court emphasized that the absence of further evidence or any direct involvement of PW-3 in the events leading up to the offence weakened the probative value of her deposition. Consequently, the court found that the last seen theory, in isolation, was insufficient to convict the respondent-accused, and thus, it could not be relied upon to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
11. PW-4 Ratansinh Punjabhai Patel, Exh-11, reached the place of the incident after the assault and asked PW-2 Amarsinh about the incident. As this information was hearsay, it could not be relied upon as direct evidence. Additionally, inconsistencies in his account, including the sequence of events and his interaction with PW-2, further weakened his testimony. Additionally, While PW-4 have reached the scene after the incident, he testified that only PW-2 Amarsinh was present at the time, contrary to the deposition of PW-3, which suggested other individuals were also present. This inconsistency in the accounts of the witnesses raised doubts about the reliability of their testimonies.
12. PW-5 Shanabhai Narsingbhai Patel, Exh-12, deposed that when he arrived at the place of the incident, the metal mounted stick Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined was in the hands of PW-2, not the accused. This contradicts the prosecution's theory that the weapon was used by the respondent- accused, further weakening the connection between the accused and the crime. Additionally, in his cross-examination, admitted that PW- 2 Amarsinh, PW-3 Kaliben, and the village sarpanch had collectively decided how to frame the complaint against the accused. This raised serious doubts about the independence and credibility of his testimony, suggesting that the complaint might have been influenced or fabricated.
13. PW-6 Vajesinh Kangabhai, Exh-13, In his cross-examination provided conflicting statements regarding the incident. His inability to provide a consistent account of the events indicated that he was not a reliable witness. The court noted that his testimony failed to support the prosecution's case.
14. PW-7 Babubhai Maganbhai Patel, Exh-14, panch witness and PW-8 Bhimsinh Nathabhai Bariya, Exh-19, Investigating officer, primarily presented evidence related to procedural aspects, such as the collection of evidence and preparation of panchnamas. The court acknowledged that their evidence supported the occurrence of the crime but noted that it failed to conclusively establish the respondent-accused's involvement.
15. The court identified several key issues that weakened the prosecution's case. First, it found that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 were based on hearsay, as they relied on what others had told them about the incident, rendering their evidence inadmissible as direct proof. Additionally, PW-5 and PW-3 admitted that a Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined collective decision was made to frame the complaint, and PW-6 provided an inconsistent of events, further undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court also noted the lack of independent witnesses, as many were either interested or influenced, casting doubts on their impartiality. Lastly, while PW-1 confirmed that the death was homicidal, there was no corroborative evidence directly linking the respondent-accused to the crime scene or the murder itself. PW-7 and PW-8, though supporting procedural aspects of the investigation, did not provide conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime. Overall, the court found that the prosecution's case was built on unreliable, inconsistent, and hearsay evidence, lacking the corroboration necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
16. The court perusing the judgment of acquittal, find that the trial court's decision was consistent with established legal principles. The court may refer to and rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (Supra), wherein the Apex Court held in para 41 and 42 as under, "41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. "
17. The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471, wherein the Apex Court has examined the case law with regard to the power of the High Court to overturned the decision of the Sessions Court where an another view is possible. Examining the case including that of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Apex Court has culled out the general principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the presumption is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and therefore, whenever there are two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial court.Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
18. While perusing the evidence of the witnesses, particularly PW- 3-Kaliben Mulabhai vide Exh-10 and PW-4-Ratansinjh Punjabhai Patel vide Exh-11, these have deposed that Kantiben-the accused is of unsound mind.
18.1 PW3 has deposed as under:-
"The brain of Kantiben does not work proper. It is true that she has no idea what she was doing or talking about. It is true that she is behaving like a insane person."
18.2 PW-4 has also deposed as under:-
"The brain of Kantiben does not work proper. It is true that the entire village know her as a mad woman. It is true that she has no idea what she was doing or talking about."
18.3 These are the two witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution is heavily relying and therefore, during the course of trial, it came on record that the respondent-accused was of unsound mind.
18.4 The Court is the view that the moment such an evidence comes on record regarding unsoundness of mind, the trial Court is obligated to resort to the relevant provisions of the Procedure Code viz. Sections 328 and 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 367 and 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
19. In this regard, the Court may refer to a division bench judgment of this Court in case of State of Gujarat v/s. Manjuben Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined d/o of Kasturbhai Nanjibhai Kunvariya (Devipujak) reported in, 2019 (2) GLR 1410, where in para-27 it is held as under:-
"27. The case of the State before the trial court is being represented by the public prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor is not supposed to seek conviction by hook or crook. Howsoever heinous or gruesome the crime may be, but that has nothing to do with the mandatory compliance of the provisions of Section 329 of the Code. It goes without saying and it is a settled position of law that Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory. Needless to say that the Public Prosecutor is the officer of the Court. His first and foremost duty to the Court is to place the entire material before the Court on behalf of the prosecution. He must be truthful and honest. We fail to understand why all these materials, referred to above, were not brought by the Public Prosecutor to the notice of the Trial Court even while the Public Prosecutor opened his case as envisaged under Section 226 of the Code."
20. In this regard, the facts emerging on record is that two important witnesses have deposed that the respondent-accused to be of unsound mind. The issue of unsoundness of mind is to be seen in two ways, where the unsound state of mind is at the time of committing the offense, where due to external reasons brain being under the influence of alcohol or drugs or for any other reasons, the accused person is temporarily incapacitated to comprehend the consequences of his act and another being a medical/psychiatric ill- health and condition of the accused due to which the accused is unable to know the consequences of his actions. The other stage to assess his unsoundness is at the stage of trial i.e. whether the accused is in a fit state of mind or stable mind to face the trial, to understand the process of ongoing trial and is also able to understand the outcome of such trial.
Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
21. Where it is a case that due to external reasons, the accused was incapacitated temporarily to understand the consequences of his action, then as provided in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused has to take such a defense and make it good based on the principles of law wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in a recent decision in case of Prakash Nayi vs. State of Goa, reported in, 2023 (5) SCC 673.
22. Whereas in case of unsound mind as is appearing in the facts of this case, a person who himself is suffering a medical condition of unsound mind, he himself cannot raise a plea or defense of his own unsoundness of mind. Such a illustration is self contradictory and therefore, only the provisions of Section 328 and 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 367 and 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) obligates a trail Judge to take the steps contemplated therein, else the Apex Court in decision of Jai Shankar (Lunatic) though Vijay Shankar Brother Guardian v/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in, 1973 (3) SCC 83, while discussing similar provisions of Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 510 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) has even gone on to hold the proceedings would stand vitiated.
23. Chapter XXV of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provide legal provisions for dealing with accused persons of unsound mind. Section 84 IPC grants immunity to an accused if, at the time of the offense, they were incapable of understanding the nature of their act or distinguishing between right and wrong due to unsoundness of Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined mind. The procedural framework for handling such cases during inquiry or trial is outlined in Sections 328-339 CrPC. If the accused is found to be incapable of defense due to lunacy during inquiry (Section 328) or trial (Section 329), the Magistrate or Court ascertains their mental state and may detain them in safe custody or release them on assurance of care. Under Section 330, detention continues until the accused is fit to defend themselves, and the inquiry or trial can be resumed under Section 331. If the accused is fit during trial but was a lunatic at the time of the offense, the trial proceeds (Section 333) and may result in acquittal on grounds of insanity (Section 334), with the accused detained in safe custody and the case reported to the State Government (Section 335). Provisions for discharge or care by a relative are covered under Sections 338 and 339. Additionally, Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 places the burden of proving the unsoundness of mind on the accused, who must establish, with credible medical evidence, that they were incapable of understanding the nature of their act at the time of the offense. These provisions ensure justice, balancing public safety and the rights of mentally ill persons.
24. Therefore, as discussed above, the stage at which it came on record of the trial Court regarding the unsoundness of mind of the accused, there was a cause for the trial Court to invoke Sections 328 and 329 of the CRPC (Section 367 and 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which in facts of the case, the trial Court is not done and not dealt with in the impugned judgment and order. It was not necessary for the accused to raise such a contention in his defense.
Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
25. The court observed that in the case at hand, the issue of mental fitness of the respondent-accused to stand trial had not been properly addressed, despite evidence indicating possible insanity. The court may refer to and rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in Prakash Nayi (Supra), wherein the Apex Court held in para 5, 8 and 11 as under, "5. The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the consequence of it.
8. The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged.
Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
11. The Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether the act was done by a person with an unsound mind within the rigour of Section 84 of the IPC."
25.1 The Court emphasized that the presumption of sanity gets discharged once adequate materials indicating insanity are available, requiring the Court to satisfy itself regarding mental state of the accused. In the present case, it indicated that the respondent- accused was of unsound mind. However, the trial court failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 329(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to ascertain the respondent's mental fitness to stand trial.
26. This Court therefore, deems it appropriate to direct in general that any stage of trial, if a credible evidence comes on the record of the Court regarding unsoundness of mind as the accused under trial to face the trial, the trial Court is obligated to invoke Sections 328 and 329 of the Code (Section 367 and 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) as the case may be and to resort to the procedural steps as contemplated under Sections 328 and 329 of the Code (Section 367 and 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
26.1 The court noted that findings of the trial Court did not warrant interference as they were neither perverse nor based on insufficient evidence. The prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondent-accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court had properly considered the evidence in its acquittal decision.
Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/596/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
27. The Court has also perused judgment and order of the Sessions Court and finds that cogent and convincing reasons are assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the respondent accused.
28. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated dated 20.03.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Godhara, District Panchmahals in Session case No.259 of 2000 stands confirmed. Bail and bail-bonds of the accused, if any, stand discharged. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (SAMIR J. DAVE,J) SIDDHARTH Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:30:14 IST 2025