A division bench of Rajasthan High Court Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the trial court came to the conclusion that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by a preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt.
Background of the Case
The appellant herein had been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 11.11.2019 passed by trial Court u/s 302 IPC. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant had preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
The appellant-Mohanlal was married to the deceased-Jhamka d/o Sanwla Ram about 5 years before the incident. Smt. Jhamka has inflicted injuries at her matrimonial home and was declared dead at the hospital. Thereafter, Sanwla Ram filed a written report at the Police Station on the same day alleging that the deceased's maternal relatives viz. The husband Mohanlal, the sister-in-law Manju Devi and the brother-in-law Bhakra Ram used to harass and humiliate the deceased for dowry. He detailed that Whenever she came to the maternal home, she complained of these incidents to him. The deceased father stated that he had given sufficient dowry but their daughter was still being harassed and murdered.
Mohanlal took a specific plea of insanity in his explanation and stated that he was suffering from a bout of schizophrenia on the date of the incident. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and, upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court drew a conclusion that the allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry was not substantiated.
Accordingly, all the three accused Mohanlal, Manju Devi, and Bhakhra Ram were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The accused i.e. Mohanlal was acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. However, he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment by the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2019 which is assailed in this appeal.
Submissions made by the Counsels
The counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court was not at all justified in relying upon the pleadings of the bail applications filed on behalf of the accused-appellant in order to draw an adverse inference against him. He contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the accused-appellant was responsible for causing the fatal injuries to his wife then also, apparently, since the accused was suffering from insanity, he deserved the benefit of Section 84 IPC and is entitled to an acquittal.
In contrast, the Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondents, contended that the murder was committed inside the matrimonial home and as the presence of the accused in the house has been established by unimpeachable evidence, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden would shift on to the accused to explain as to in what manner his wife received the fatal injuries in his presence. He contended that the accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not deny his presence in the house and took a lame plea of insanity, which was not proved by any plausible evidence on record.
Observation of the Court
Court after taking into consideration material evidence available on record and judgment of the trial court observed the fact regarding Smt. Jhamka having been inflicted the sharp weapon injuries in the matrimonial home leading to her death was not disputed by the learned defence counsel. In Spite thereof, the bench has gone through the evidence of Dr. Omprakash, a member of the Medical Board constituted at the CHC, Sanchore which conducted an autopsy upon the dead body of Smt. Jhamka issued the postmortem report while taking note of sharp weapon wounds behind the skull, on the left shoulder, behind the neck, and on the abdomen.
The skull bone was fractured. All the injuries were antemortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the fact regarding Smt. Jhamka having expired by the sharp weapon injuries inflicted to her inside the matrimonial home was well established. Court pointed out that the defense did not dispute the presence of the accused inside his house at the time of the incident.
The accused was arrested on 06.07.2013 vide arrest memo. The pair of trousers worn by the accused was collected from his body and was sent to the FSL with the blood-stained apparel of the deceased and a report was received establishing that all the articles including the trousers, were stained with ‘B’ Group human blood. As per this evidence and by resorting to the reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, there was no hesitation in holding that the appellant inflicted the fatal sharp weapon injuries to his wife Smt. Jhamka. Hence, it was concluded that the trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant herein inflicted the blows by a sharp weapon to Smt. Jhamka thereby causing her death.
The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and hence, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was well established from the material placed on record by the prosecution. As far as Plea of insanity was into the picture it was held that there is unimpeachable documentary as well as oral evidence which establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused was being provided treatment for the mental ailment since the year 2010 onwards.
The court observed that Psychosis, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) is a categorization of symptoms within a general diagnosis of Psychosis. The court added that Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology grades Psychosis as an acutely severe mental disorder, where the patient loses contact with reality along with an absolute lack of empathy and absence of insight.
The court, while acquitting the accused of all charges, observed that the appellant shall be provided care and support befitting his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, after his release from prison. In this regard, the court asked to send a copy of this order to District Legal Services Authority, Jalore for needful action. Further, it was said that the conclusion drawn by the Trial court is not justified as a matter of convincing and unimpeachable oral and medical evidence available on record and relied on the case of Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2018 SC 3093] to validate the same.
Court order concerning the same read as,
"It is clear that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by a preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the defense failed to prove that the accused was affected with such mental ailment, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his acts, is totally unjustified."
"Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court."
Case Details
Case Title: Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State
Bench: Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
