Shivlal Kawalsingh Taram vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Korchi Tah.Korchi ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8263 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shivlal Kawalsingh Taram vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Korchi Tah.Korchi ... on 8 December, 2025

Author: Anil L. Pansare

Bench: Anil L. Pansare

2025:BHC-NAG:13849-DB


                                                  1                         jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                 NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

                                  Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2021

              Shivlal Kawalsingh Taram,
              Aged 32 Years,
              Occ. Cultivator,
              R/o. Ganeshpur, Tah. Korchi,
              Dist. Gadchiroli.                                            ... Appellant

                    - Versus -

              State of Maharashtra,
              Through P.S.O. Korchi,
              Tah. Korchi, Dist. Gadchiroli.                             ... Respondent
              -----------------------------------------------------
              Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate (Appointed) for the appellant
              Mr. K. R. Lule, APP for the State/respondent
              -----------------------------------------------------

                                               CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
                                                       RAJ. D. WAKODE, JJ.

                                               DATED : 08-12-2025

              ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated

24-3-2021 passed by the Sessions Court, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case

No. 91/2020 holding appellant guilty of offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Briefly stated, the allegation against the appellant is that on

25-5-2020, at the backside of his house, he has committed murder of 2 jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt

his own wife, namely, Hemlata Shivlal Taram by inflicting blows of

sickle on her head, hands and back. The report was lodged by P.W. 2,

who is appellant's aunt. She was residing adjacent to the house of

appellant.

3. Our attention is invited to the report lodged by her, wherein

in paragraph no. 2 of the report, she stated that appellant used to look

here and there like a mad person. His relatives, on number of

occasions, made attempt to take appellant to doctor for treatment,

however, he used to run away. He was taken to the village priest. He,

however, abused the priest and the persons taking him to priest and

thereafter used to run away. With this history, she has lodged report on

26-5-2020 stating therein that while appellant's wife was cleaning

utensils, for no reason, appellant inflected multiple blows on her person

by means of sickle. His wife succumbed to injuries. Appellant was

apprehended by relatives at the spot. Accordingly, evidence is led.

P.W. 2 in her cross-examination admitted that the appellant was

behaving like an insane person.

4. The argument is that since it was known to the

Investigating Officer that appellant had history of insanity, it was his

duty to refer the appellant to medical examination and to place on

record the evidence that the appellant did not suffer from any insanity.

3 jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention

to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bapu alias Gujraj

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 509] . The relevant

observations find place in paragraph nos. 8, 11 and 12 which read as

under :-

"8. Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts.

11. The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the 4 jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt

accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen in History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. II, page 166 has observed that if a persons cut off the head of a sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up, would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of knowing the physical effects of his act. The law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section. This Court in Sherall Walli Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra : (1972 Cr.LJ 1523 (SC)), held that : (SCC p.79) "The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and children or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence."

12. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated M'Naughton rules of 19th 5 jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt

Century England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the same as those laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords, in M' Naughton's case. (1843) 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or prefect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient."

Thus, the Supreme Court has examined scope of Section 84 of

IPC where a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the

ground of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of doing the act, is either

incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing

what is either wrong or contrary to law. As such, the onus to prove

unsoundness of mind is on the accused, the Supreme Court, however,

also held that where during the investigation, previous history of

insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an investigator to subject the

accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the

Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the 6 jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt

prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the

accused. The Court further held that such onus has to be discharged by

producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the

offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by

evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors.

6. In the present case, unfortunately the appellant was never

subjected to the medical test and, therefore, his status of mind at the

time of commission of offence is not known to anybody. The fact,

however, remains that the Investigating Officer was aware right from

day one that the appellant had some behavioral issues and that his

behaviour indicated insanity. In the circumstances, it was the duty of

the Investigating Officer to refer the appellant to medical examination

to understand his mental status as regards commission of offence.

Having not done so, there is inherent defect in prosecution's case. We

therefore, need not go into other details since it is admitted that in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, this aspect has been not brought on

record through any witness.

7. That being so, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to

the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant shall

be released from jail, if there is no other legal impediment. Before

releasing, he shall, however, be subjected to medical examination to 7 jg.cri.appeal 289.2021.odt

Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur. If the report of medical examination

indicates that his mental status is normal, then he shall be released

forthwith from the jail. If the report, however, certifies that his mental

status is not normal, he shall be referred to mental asylum or Regional

Mental Hospital, Nagpur for his ailment by the jail authorities and shall

be released only after his treatment is over. This exercise shall be

carried out within three weeks from today.

8. All concerned to act on authenticated/uploaded copy of the

judgment.

9. Fees of appointed counsel for the appellant shall be

quantified and paid in accordance with law.

                                      (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)                  (Anil L. Pansare, J.)




                           wasnik




Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 16:26:13