Shupa Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14390 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr. A. No. 345 of 2019 Reserved on: 19.09.2023

.

                            Date of decision: 22.09.2023





    Shupa Ram                                            ...Appellant





                            Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                            ...Respondent
    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant : Mr. L. N. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. I. N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G., Mr. J.

S. Guleria, Dy. A.G and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for the commission of an offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for six months and aggrieved

thereby has filed the instant appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the

appellant was a resident of village Bas Khaniyar, Tehsil Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P and had been residing there

alongwith his wife Smt. Satya Devi (hereinafter referred to as

deceased). They had five children from the wedlock, who were

residing with their uncle, namely, Shri Partap Singh in village

Jakhal. The eldest son Shri Virender Singh (hereinafter referred

.

to as complainant), was a student of 10+2 at the relevant

time.

3. On 19.5.2015, the complainant, after school hours

came to his parents. The deceased being his mother disclosed

that she was beaten up by the appellant. The complainant

made inquiries from the appellant about this episode and the

appellant admitted the occurrence and assured that such

conduct would not be repeated in future. After taking their

meals, all the three went to bed.

4. On the next morning, the appellant asked the

complainant to go to village Jakhal to arrange money as his

mother was to be medically checked up. The complainant

started his journey at 6.30 A.M. and before he could reach

village Jakhal, his uncle Shri Surat Singh met him on the way

and the complainant narrated the purpose of his visit to him.

Shri Surat Singh accompanied the complainant and they

returned to village Bas Khaniyar and his uncle told that they

would make arrangement of money on the way itself. It was at

about 9.30 A.M., when the complainant and his uncle Shri

Surat Singh reached near the cattle shed belonging to the

appellant and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood.

There were injuries on her forehead and her hair was blood

soaked. Two blood-stained stones were also lying nearby the

cattle shed. Both of them picked up the deceased and took

.

her to the kitchen and found that she was already dead. When

the complainant and his uncle entered the house, they found

the appellant sleeping. Both of them woke up the appellant

and inquired about the fact as to what had happened to the

deceased. The appellant allegedly disclosed that he had killed

her by giving her stone blows.

5. On finding this, Shri Surat Singh made a call to his

brother Shri Partap Singh and intimated him about the

incident and on this, Partap Singh further informed the police

at Police Station, Shillai telephonically and rapat No. 13-A was

entered by the police in Police Station, Shillai. SI/SHO Shri Ram

Chand accompanied by other staff immediately proceeded to

the spot, where he recorded the statement of complainant

under section 154 Cr.PC., and sent the same to Police Station,

Shillai for registration of FIR. An FIR under section 302 IPC was

accordingly lodged. The dead body was immediately shifted to

CHC Shillai and postmortem conducted upon the same by the

Medical Officer. The Investigating Officer prepared the site

plan of the place of occurrence on 20.5.2015 itself. On

21.5.2015, Investigating Officer handed over the dead body to

the complainant and his uncle Shri Surat Singh for cremation.

6. On 21.5.2015, during interrogation the appellant

disclosed that he had scuffle with his wife in the house, where

after she ran towards the cattle shed but the appellant gave a

.

stone blow on her back, as a result of which she fell down and

thereafter, appellant picked up another stone and gave a fatal

blow on her forehead causing her death. The Investigating

Officer prepared the memo in this behalf and collected the

stones. Further investigation was done and the statements of

witnesses were

recorded accordingly. The blood-stained

clothes of the deceased and stones etc. were deposited with

MHC, Police Station, Shillai. The postmortem report was

collected and blood stained clothes were sent to SFSL, Junga

and the report was obtained.

7. On consideration of the entire material, charge for

the offence under Section 302 IPC was put to the appellant,

which he denied and pleaded his innocence and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case,

examined as many as 8 witnesses.

9. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement

of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein

incriminating circumstances were put to him, to which he

denied and while pleading his innocence, claimed that he was

falsely implicated.

10. It is vehemently argued by Shri L. N. Sharma,

learned Advocate, that the appellant has been wrongly

convicted as the prosecution has failed to establish his case

.

beyond reasonable doubt and moreover, the appellant could

not have been otherwise convicted as he was not in a sound

mental health and had been suffering from mental illness and

psychiatric disorder.

11. On the other hand, Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned

Additional Advocate General, would argue that the learned

Court below after assessing the material on record, has rightly

convicted the appellant and in case the appellant had been

suffering from any mental disorder or psychiatric problem, as

now sought to be adjudicated before this Court, then the same

ought to have been brought to the notice of the learned Trial

Court during the course of the trial or even the learned Judge

while conducting the trial would have noticed this fact when

the appellant had repeatedly been appearing in the Court

during the course of proceedings, especially, when the

statements of the witnesses were being recorded and, even if,

by chance the court did not notice this fact, then the same

would have been noticed by the learned Court at the time of

recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313

Cr.P.C.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have gone through the records of the case.

12. As rightly observed by the learned Trial Court that

.

the prosecution case entirely hinges around the testimonies of

the son of the appellant Varinder Singh (PW1) and brother of

the appellant Surat Ram (PW2), because it were these

witnesses, who had seen the dead body of the deceased near

the cattle shed and after taking the dead body inside the

house, had made inquiry from the appellant as to what had

happened to the deceased. Both of these witnesses have half

heartedly supported the case of the prosecution and were

declared hostile and thereafter cross-examined by the Public

Prosecutor.

13. While appearing as PW1 Varinder Singh, son of the

appellant, stated that the appellant was his father and he was

having one brother and three sisters, who were residing at

village Jakhal with his uncle Partap Singh. Last year, his father

and mother were residing at village Khaniar (Bas). On

19.05.2015, he had gone to village Khaniar (Bas) and at night,

stayed with his mother and father. On the next morning, his

father asked him to collect money from his uncle for the

treatment of his mother, as she was having some injury. He

left the house of his father at about 6:30 A.M. On the way to

village Jakhal, his uncle Surat Singh met him and asked him to

go back to village Khaniar to see his mother and stated that

he would arrange the money on the way. Thereafter, both

returned to the house at village Khaniar and when they

.

reached there, they found his mother lying near cattle shed.

His mother was having injuries on forehead and blood was

also oozing out from the wound. They took the deceased to

the room and found the appellant sleeping there. He and his

uncle asked the appellant regarding the injuries sustained by

14.

r to his mother. The appellant told that she had sustained injuries

by fall and did not state that he inflicted the injuries.

At this stage, PW1 Varinder Singh was declared

hostile, as he had resiled from his previous statement. In

cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the

police had recorded his statement Ext.PW-1/A. He stated that

he had studied upto 10+2 and can read Hindi as well as

English. He denied the suggestion that when his uncle asked

his father about the injuries having been sustained by his

mother, then the appellant disclosed that he inflicted the

injuries with the blow of stones. He then confronted with

portion A to A of the statement recorded under Section 154

Cr.P.C., wherein it was so recorded. He admitted the photos

Ext.PW-1/B-1 to Ex. PW-1/B-9 pertained to the spot, wherein

his mother was found lying and blood- stained stones were

visible. He stated that his uncle Surat Singh was with him

when they noticed the body of his mother lying near cattle

shed. He stated that his father was sleeping inside the room

and had disclosed that his mother had fallen from hillock. He

.

admitted that his uncle telephonically called Partap Singh and

Sadhu Ram, who reached at the spot. He admitted that the

police had visited the spot and taken into possession the

blood stained stones, soil containing blood, grass and leaves

containing blood from the spot. He admitted that the stones

were put into a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with

seal impression 'T'. The grass, soil and leaves were put into

plastic envelopes and thereafter, these envelopes were put in

a cloth parcel and sealed with seal 'T' and the case property

was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/C.

15. The witness then identified the cloth parcel Ext.P-

1, stones Ext. P-2 to Ext. P-3, which were taken into

possession by the police in his presence. He also identified the

cloth parcel Ext.P-4, Grass Ext.P-5 to be the same, which were

taken into possession by the police. He further admitted that

when the dead body of his mother was found, there was no

other person present at home except my father. However, he

denied the suggestion that his father often quarrelled with his

mother.

16. On being cross-examined by the learned counsel

for the appellant, he admitted that there was hillock (dhank)

near cattle shed. He admitted that his father often remained ill

and kept sleeping inside the house. He further denied the

suggestion that on 19.05.2015, his mother sustained injuries,

.

so on 20.5.2015, his father asked him to arrange some money

for her treatment. He admitted that his mother used to do all

household work and there were stones and wooden planks

near the cattle shed besides dhank.

17. PW2 Surat Ram stated that the appellant was his

brother, who used to reside with his wife in village Khaniar

(Bas). The children of the appellant were residing at village

Jakhal. He further deposed that last year during summer

season his nephew PW-1 Varinder Singh had gone to the

house of his mother and father at village Khaniar. On the next

morning, PW-1 met him on the way, when he was going to

village Bas. He then asked him to arrange some money for the

treatment of his mother. He, in turn, told him to go back to see

his mother and thereafter he would arrange the money. When

he reached at village Khaniar (Bas), they found the mother of

PW1 lying near cattle shed. She had injuries on her head and

blood was oozing out of the wound. They took her to the room

and found the appellant to be sleeping in the room. When they

asked the appellant about the injuries, then he replied that

she had fallen from hillock and sustained injuries. He did not

disclose that he inflicted the injuries on her with stone blows.

It was, at this stage, this witness was declared hostile as he

had resiled from his previous statement. This witness, like PW-

1, when confronted with the statement, denied the suggestion

.

that when they had asked the appellant about the injuries

sustained by his wife, then he disclosed that he had

committed murder of his wife by inflicting injuries with the

blows of stones on her person. He too, like PW 1, was

confronted with portion A to A of statement mark A, wherein it

was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that after the

incident, he intimated Partap Singh and Sadhu Ram about the

murder having been committed by his brother i.e. appellant.

He was confronted with portion B to B of the statement mark

A, wherein it was so recorded. He too, like PW1, admitted that

the police had visited the place of occurrence and took into

possession the blood stained stones, blood stained soils and

leaves by putting the same in the cloth parcels, vide seizure

memo Ext. PW-1/C. He identified all those items as were

identified by PW1. In cross-examination by the learned

counsel for the appellant, he admitted that from the house,

when one would go to the cattle shed of the appellant, there

was dhank and also admitted that stones and wooden planks

remained lying near the cowshed.

18. Now, it would be noticed that the deceased was

the mother of the complainant and the wife of the appellant,

then why would the complainant, who had four other brother

and sisters, unnecessarily lodge an FIR, that too, accusing his

father, the appellant herein, with the most serious charge as

.

set out in the IPC being that of murder under Section 302 IPC.

Once the complainant had not chosen to explain the

circumstances, under which he was compelled to lodge FIR

against his own father, for the murder of his mother, it was for

the appellant to explain the situation, either by way of cross-

examination or through his explanation furnished in his

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when he had been given

an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against

him. Such circumstances have not been explained by leading

evidence in his defence or explained in the statement

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

19. Evidently, neither the complainant-son nor the

appellant-father have tried to explain the circumstances

during the trial which led the son to take this drastic step. In

the story that had subsequently been invented by PW1 and

PW-2, the deceased had died because of the fall from the

dhank, which was near the cattle shed of the appellant.

However, this statement is belied by the testimony of Patwari

Halqua, who was examined as PW3 and had prepared the Aks

Tatima of the spot of occurrence Ext. PW3/B, on the basis of

the application (Ext.PW3/A) moved by the police. When cross-

examined, this witness categorically stated that there was no

dhank at the spot and further denied the suggestion that he

had prepared a false spot plan or that he had not visited the

.

spot.

20. Be it stated that the learned Court below after

evaluating the entire prosecution evidence and, thereafter,

discussing the matter in detail, has found complete chain of

circumstances which points towards the guilt of the appellant

and the same has been summarised as under:-

(1) It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubts

from discussion made in para No 34 of this judgment

that the accused had given severe beatings to the deceased on the previous day of the murder and complaint to this effect was made by her to the complainant and the complainant had made reference

of the injuries suffered by his mother. This proved fact is further supplemented by the Investigating Officer In

nut shell, the accused had developed strained relations with his wife and everything was not fine between the

two.

(2) The deceased was last seen with the accused in

their house and no third person had come in or around the house within a period of next two hours. Further the accused does not suspect any other person, who could have murdered his wife. Detailed discussions regarding this circumstance have been made in para No. 35 of this judgment.

(3) The accused had got up in the morning and instructed Ins son to go to his uncle to arrange money so that the deceased could be taken for medical check

up. The hospital was also quite away from the village and it took not less than 3-4 hours in bus to reach Shillai, where CHC was situated. The accused after getting up from the bed went to sleep again and was

.

made to get up by his son and brother when the body

was brought inside the house by them. This is proved to be pretended act of the accused in order to avoid

suspicion and it has been proved during discussion in para No. 37 of this judgment.

(4) It is proved from the statement of PWS Pratap Singh

and PWG Const. Jai Chand that when this accused woke up from the pretended sleep, he disclosed on being asked by his son and brother that he has murdered his wife by giving her store bios Detailed discussion qua

this circumstance has been made in para Nos. 23 to

28.

(5) The son and brother of the accused tried to shape

the incident of murder into an accident and came up with false explanation before the court, which had rather implicated the accused rather then proving his

innocence. Detailed discussion qua this fact has been made in para Nos. 30 to 33 of this judgment.

(6) When a causality has taken place in a family, which shook the conscious of every member of the family,

the act of the cider son of the family to lodge FIR regarding murder of his mother against his own father has gone totally un-explained either from the side of the complainant or the accused. Detailed discussion qua this circumstance has been made in para Nos. 17 to 22 of this judgment.

(7) The defence developed by the accused during the trial to the effect that his wife fell from a dhank stands duly belied from the statements of the witnesses PW3

Patwari Khazan Singh and the Investigating Officer, SI Ram Chand(PW7) and the existence of dhank is not proved at all on the spot. This tact has been elaborately discussed in para Nos. 38 and 39 of this

.

judgment.

(8) The medical evidence does not corroborate the defence version of the accused in view of detailed

discussion made in para Nos. 40 and 41 of this judgment.

(9) The proved extra judicial confession by the accused

to his brother and son that he has murdered his wife by giving her stone blows, joins all the circumstances referred herem above together and makes a complete

chain. This confession is proved through the statement

of Shri Partap Singh, to whom it was immediately conveyed by Shri Surat Singh as Surat Singh was won over during the rial by the accused.

On the basis of such findings, the appellant had

been found guilty and convicted and sentenced and thus we

have not been persuaded enough to take a different view.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant when

confronted with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court

below had nothing much to argue but to contend that even if

it is assumed for a moment that the appellant had murdered

his wife, mother of the complainant, even then, the

prosecution has not established any motive in the instant

case, and apart from that the appellant was of unsound mind

at the relevant time and suffering from the psychiatric

disorder.

22. As regards the motive, this Court in Cr. A. No.

.

148 of 2019, titled as Deepak Kumar vs. State of H.P.

decided on 06.09.2023, held that in absence of motive or

the failure of the prosecution to establish a firm motive need

not necessarily lead to the acquittal of an accused, more

especially, when the prosecution adduces direct, cogent and

absence

thereof or its

unimpeachable evidence like in the instant case to establish

the commission of the offence. The motive for the offence, the

insignificance recedes into the

background.

23. It shall be apt to reproduce relevant observations

made in para 49 thereof, which read as under:-

49. We are not impressed by these arguments

as it is more than settled that absence of a motive or the failure of the prosecution to establish a firm motive

need not necessarily lead to the acquittal of an accused. More especially where the prosecution

adduces direct, cogent and unimpeachable evidence like in the instant case to establish the commission of the offence, motive for the offence, the absence thereof or its insignificance recedes into the background. In this context, it shall be apt to refer to the observations made by learned Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bahadur Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 Criminal Law Journal 2885 more particularly Paras 15 to 17 thereof, which reads as under:-

"15. The motive for a crime, being generally embedded in the mind of an accused, is a matter of inference to be drawn from the circumstances

.

that surround a case. The absence of a motive or

the failure of the prosecution to establish a firm motive need not necessarily lead to the acquittal of an accused. Where the prosecution adduces

direct, cogent and unimpeachable evidence to establish the commission of the offence, motive for the offence, the absence thereof or its

insignificance recedes into the back- ground. In a given case, the motive may appear insignificant but one cannot lose sight of the complexities of the human psyche. Human beings do not respond

to situations with mathematical certainty. A given

set of circumstances may lead to an adverse reaction on the part of an individual, whereas another may simply ignore them. As human

conduct is, by its very nature, unpredictable, the fact that the motive appears to be minor or inconsequential, cannot, by itself, be a

circumstance to doubt the participation of an accused in the com-mission of an offence."

16. In Tarseem Kumar v. The Delhi Ad-

ministration, AIR 1994 SC 2585: 1994 Cri LJ 470 the Apex Court held :-

"Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this

Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reason- able doubts on basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive loses its

.

importance. But in a case which is based on

circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the

accused assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding

that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime,

the accused can be convicted. But the

investigating agency as well as the Court should as- certain as far as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to

commit the crime in question. In the present case, no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of Gulshan, has been

suggested or established on behalf of the

prosecution."

17. In Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR

1997 SC 1808, the Apex Court held :-

"Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One can- not normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is

quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in Reg. V. Palmer (Shorthand Report at page 308

.

(sic) CCC May 1856) thus: "But if there be any

motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of

little importance. We know, from experience of criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives, not merely from malice and revenge,

but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties." Though, it is a sound proposition that every

criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound

to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that

mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant. In Atley v.

State of U. P. (AIR 1955 SC 807: 1955 Cri LJ

1653) it was held that is true, and where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the Court

that the accused was guilty but absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion". In some cases, it may not be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. There may also be cases in which it is not possible to disinter the mental

transaction of the accused which would have implied him to act. No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation. Sometimes, it

.

may appear that the motive established is a

weak one. That by itself is insufficient to lead to any inference adverse to the prosecution."

24. In the given facts and circumstances of the instant

case, it is not at all necessary for the prosecution to have

established any specific motive, which led the appellant to

commit murder of his wife, more especially, when it was

family of the appellant itself, being his son, brother etc., who

reported the police regarding the murder having been

committed by the appellant.

25. As regards the further contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant that he was suffering from

psychiatric disorder, mental illness and was of unsound mind

on the said date, we find that this is clearly an afterthought,

as nothing prevented the appellant from pointing out this fact

to the learned Trial Court and, even otherwise, this fact would

have been duly noticed by the learned Trial Court when the

appellant had been attending the hearing of the case, more

particularly, when the statements of the prosecution

witnesses were being recorded. If, at all, this fact went

escaped the notice of the learned Presiding Judge at that time,

we have no doubt in our mind that the mental condition of the

appellant would have not gone unnoticed by the learned

Presiding Judge when the statement of the appellant under

Section 313 CrP.C. was being recorded.

.

26. It is more than settled that in charge of murder,

the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind,

the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of

his act, is only defence as duly exemplified by Section 105 (III)

(a) of the Evidence Act. Further, Court shall presume absence

of the circumstance, so as to take the case within any of the

exception in IPC. There must be material on record to indicate

that the appellant was medically treated as a person of

unsound mind, or was legally required to be taken as a person

of unsound mind, which is not a fact situation obtaining in this

case. (See Prem Singh vs. State (NCT of Delh) (2023) 3

SCC 372).

27. To similar effect is the another recent judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Nayi alias Sen vs.

State of Goa (2023) 5 SCC 673, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that Section 84 IPC recognises only an act

which could not be termed as an offence. Such an act shall

emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of

an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the

provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and

it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act.

Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said

act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an

act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. The test is

.

from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere

medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of

mind. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the

nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or

contrary to the law. "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". The

element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall

be present at the time of commission.

28. Section 84 IPC 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.

29. The burden of proof under Section 105 of the

.

Evidence Act, 1872 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. However, Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which

places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a

general principle, the onus is upon the person accused to

bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case

under Section 84 IPC, one has to apply the concept of

preponderance of probabilities. 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. Section 105 has to be read

along with Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The better

way to reconcile the aforesaid provision would be to have a

look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after

the occurrence.

30. As Section 84 IPC has its laudable objective behind

it, the prosecution and the court have their distinct roles to

play. The agency has to take up the investigation from the

.

materials produced on behalf of the person claiming

unsoundness. It has to satisfy itself that the case would not

come within the purview of Section 84 IPC. 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

IPC.

31.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we see no

reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and

sentence, so passed by the learned Court below.

Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

                                                (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                        Judge





                                                   (Ranjan Sharma)





    22.09.2023                                           Judge
           (sanjeev)