Telangana High Court
Chittedi Sahender, Adilabad Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 25 September, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, G.Radha Rani
* THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
&
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.554 of 2016
% Date: 25.09.2024
#Chittedi Sahender, S/o.Gangaiah @ Ganga Reddy
Aged 32 years, Occupation: Goats Grazer,
R/o.Dhannur (B) Village, Boath Mandal,
Adilabad District.
...Appellant / accused
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
...Respondent / Complainant
!Counsel for Appellant/s : Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy.
^Counsel for Respondent/s : Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. AIR 1951 SC 204
2. AIR 1966 SC 43
3. 1994 (4) SCC 569
4. 1953 AIR 415
5. 2023 Live Law SC 71 = (2023) 5 SCC 673
2
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SRI P.SAM KOSHY
&
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.554 of 2016
JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Radha Rani):
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant - accused aggrieved by the
judgment dated 29.04.2016 passed in S.C.No.15 of 2015 by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in convicting and sentencing him to life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC and further sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of seven years and fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence
under Section 307 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the Police of
Boath, Adilabad District was that the appellant - accused committed the murder
of his father Chittedi Gangaiah @ Ganga Reddy aged 60 years and of his wife
Chittedi Anasuya aged 28 years by hacking them with an axe and also
attempted to commit the murder of his mother Chittedi Narsamma on
06.09.2014 at 19:30 hours at his house at Dhannur-B Village of Boath Mandal,
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
Adilabad District. As per the charge sheet filed by the Police, the de-facto
complainant, the mother of the appellant - accused came to the Police Station on
06.09.2014 at 21:30 hours and lodged a written report, in which she stated that
on 06.09.2014 at 12:00 hours her son Chittedi Sahender (appellant - accused)
asked her to provide a new cell phone to him. On that she told him that she was
not having money and as and when she had money, she would provide the same.
On that he threatened her with dire consequences to kill her. At about 19:30
hours when her husband returned home after grazing the goats, her son took axe
from her husband's hand and attempted to commit her murder. But, she
managed to escape from the spot and hidden in the cattle shed of Edamala
Chinna Reddy. As he could not trace her, he raised hue and cry stating that he
would commit the murder of his wife or his father and committed the murder of
her husband Gangaiah @ Ganga Reddy by beating with an axe on the neck.
Her husband fell and died on the spot due to oozing of heavy blood. After death
of her husband, he attacked his wife Chittedi Anasuya by beating her with the
same axe on the neck. She ran to the house of Nallala Bheemudu which was
opposite to their house by raising hue and cry and collapsed in the said house
with heavy bleeding. On hearing the hues and cries, she came to the spot and
found her husband and her daughter-in-law died on the spot. Later, her
villagers informed 108 Ambulance and Police Station, Boath.
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
3. Basing on the said report, the Sub-Inspector of Police (for short "SI") of
PS Boath registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2014 under Sections 302 and
307 of IPC, recorded the statement of the de-facto complainant under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and informed the Circle Inspector (for short "CI") of Police of PS
Boath over telephone. The CI of Police was on Lord Ganesh Idols immersion
Bandobusth duty at Bhainsa. But obtained permission from his superiors and
came to the scene of offence situated at Dhannur-B Village, got the dead bodies
photographed at the scene of offence and shifted the dead bodies to Government
Civil Hospital, Boath. It was further stated that due to incessant rainfall and
night hours, he could not conduct the scene of offence panchanama and inquest
over the dead bodies at that time and on the next day i.e. on 07.09.2014, the CI
visited Government Civil Hospital, Boath, recorded the statements of the
witnesses. The inquest was conducted by the SI of Police and the blood soaked
clothes of the deceased were collected. The CI visited the scene of offence at
Dhannur-B Village examined the neighbors, secured the mediators, drafted the
scene of offence and crime detail form and collected the blood soaked soil and
control soil from the scene of offence and sent the material objects to Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Karimnagar for analysis and opinion. The CI of
Police of PS Boath apprehended the accused on 11.09.2014 at his house at
07:30 hours, interrogated him, secured the presence of the mediators, drafted the
confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused and seized the crime
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
weapon i.e. the axe at the instance of the accused from his house. He produced
the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. After collecting
the Post Mortem Examination (for short "PME") report and FSL report, he filed
charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of
IPC.
4. On committal of the case by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Boath vide PRC.NO.36 of 2014, the case was numbered as S.C.No.15 of 2015
and trial was conducted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
Charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302
and 307 of IPC and trial was conducted.
5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17
and MOs.1 to 9 on its behalf. The accused was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. He got examined the Assistant Professor of Institute of Mental Health,
Hyderabad as DW.1 on his behalf and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial
court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under
Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence recorded
against him by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, the accused
preferred this appeal.
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
8. Heard Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court failed to
see that there was no proximate or immediate motive for the accused to kill the
deceased. The trial court erred in not giving any credence to the evidence of
DW.1, who stated that the accused was suffering from mental imbalance with
alcohol induced psychosis and ignored the documents marked under Exs.D3
and D4, which would clearly show that the accused took treatment for his
imbalanced state of mind. The trial court also erred in ignoring the evidence of
PW.1, the de-facto complainant, who also admitted that the accused was
suffering from mental imbalance. The trial court failed to see that the plea of
insanity could be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability and that
the prosecution failed to prove the mens-rea. The absence of motive coupled
with surrounding circumstances could lead to an inference of insanity. The
offence would not fall under Section 302 of IPC. The sentence awarded by the
trial court was unduly severe and un-sustainable and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand
contended that the trial court on considering the entire evidence on record
including the plea of insanity taken by the appellant - accused opined that the
said plea was not taken by the accused at the initial stage and after cross-
examining all the prosecution witnesses, wherein suggestions were given
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
denying the offence, the appellant - accused had taken the plea of insanity,
which would show that he admitted committing the offence, but was contending
that he was not aware of the repercussions of his act. The trial court also
observed that the appellant - accused failed to prove that he was suffering from
imbalanced state of mind at the time of committing the offence and no
suggestions were given to the witnesses with regard to his mental health
condition, found him guilty for the offences under sections 302 and 307 of IPC
and the same was valid, need not be set aside and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. Now the points for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the appellant - accused is successful in proving the defence of
insanity taken by him?
2) Whether the trial court committed any error in recording the conviction
and sentence against the appellant - accused?
3) To what result?
POINT No.1:
Whether the appellant - accused is successful in proving the defence
of insanity taken by him?
12. The case of the prosecution was that the accused committed the murder of
his father and that of his wife, as his mother i.e. the de-facto complainant failed
to provide cell phone to him. No motive was suggested to kill the deceased
persons i.e. his father and wife. The motive alleged by the prosecution that the
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
complainant i.e. the mother of the appellant - accused failed to provide money
for purchasing the cell phone to the accused was trivial in nature. The motive
could be trivial, but, however the same was also alleged against the de-facto
complainant, but not against the deceased persons. To prove any offence, there
should be actus-reus coupled with mens-rea. The prosecution must prove both
actus-reus as well as mens-rea.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravula Hari Prasad Rao v. The State1, held
that:
"Unless legislation expressly or by essential
inference excluded mens-rea as a component
ingredient of a crime, a person should not be
judged guilty of an offence unless he possessed
a guilty mind at the time of the conduct."
14. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh2 and Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab 3 , the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that the element of mens-rea
must be read into statutory criminal proceedings, unless the statute expressly or
by necessary inference throws it out.
15. In Mohinder Singh v. The State4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"The offence is determined by the existence of
both mens-rea and an actus-reus. Both parts of
AIR 1951 SC 204
AIR 1966 SC 43
1994 (4) SCC 569
1953 AIR 415
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
the crime must be present and proof of guilty
purpose without the overt act or proof of a deed
not prompted by any criminal intent will not
result in a conviction. The prosecution must
prove both parts of the crime by demonstrating
that the accused did anything that, in law, would
constitute an intention to commit an offence and
that in doing so, he was motivated by a desire to
achieve a clear objective which constituted the
specific crime. To be a crime, both the intent
and the act must be present."
16. In the light of these principles, the evidence of the witnesses would need
to be looked into.
17. PW.1 is the mother of the appellant - accused and the de-facto
complainant. Her evidence was recorded on 25.06.2015. She stated that about
10 months back, at 06:00 AM, the accused asked her for purchase of cell phone
and she informed him that she did not have money and it could be purchased 4
or 5 days thereafter. The accused went away. On the same day in the evening
at 07:30 PM, the accused snatched the axe from the hands of her husband and
came against her to attack her. Therefore, she ran away. Then the accused
attacked her husband and hacked him, thereby he died. The accused also
attacked his wife Anasuya and hacked her. Thereby her daughter-in-law ran to
the house of LW.10 with cut injury, fell down and died. On hearing the cries,
she came and saw the dead bodies of her husband and her daughter-in-law.
Somebody telephoned to 108 Ambulance and the Ambulance came. Since her
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
husband and her daughter-in-law died, the Ambulance went away. She gave the
complaint Ex.P1 to the Police. She got drafted Ex.P1 with the help of LW.7 -
Venkata Ramana.
18. In her cross-examination, it was recorded that the learned counsel for the
accused requested for a pass over for five minutes for taking instructions from
the accused and the learned counsel also represented that he was not allowed by
the escort party to talk to the accused. The Court recorded that instructions
were given to the escort party to allow the counsel and the escort party was
directed to take the accused to the AO room to facilitate the counsel. But the
counsel again represented that the accused did not come to the AO room and the
escort did not bring the accused to the AO room and he could not take
instructions.
19. Thus, it could be seen that the cross-examination of the witnesses was
done without the instructions given by the accused. However, PW.1 in her
cross-examination stated that the accused was in the house on the date of
incident, as he was ill. Otherwise, he used to go along with her husband to
graze the goats. They had 60 to 70 goats. On that day, her husband alone took
the goats for grazing. Her husband returned home at 05:00 PM. The accused
was present at the house when her husband returned. At that time, the accused
did not say anything to her. She admitted that she did not witness the incident
of attacking her husband and her daughter-in-law, since she ran away. She also
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
stated that she did not go to Police Station to present ExP1 and she did not
remember as to who drafted Ex.P1.
20. She was recalled for further cross-examination on 22.03.2016 and in her
further cross-examination, she admitted that the accused was admitted in the
mental hospital prior to the death of her husband about one month ago. She
stated the behavior of the accused that the accused used to tear the papers and
set them ablaze, he used to refuse to eat food stating that she was putting insects
in the same. The accused also used to tear the clothes of his children and set
them ablaze and do different imbalanced acts showing that he was mentally un-
stable and so he was admitted in the mental hospital, there he was treated for 10
to 15 days without any result. She further stated that the accused used to be
cordial with his father, wife and others and she had not stated to the police about
the imbalance of the accused, when she made her statement. She further
admitted that they got the accused discharged from the hospital by requesting
the doctors and the hospital authorities provided them with medicines and also
advised them to bring him back if required, at the time of discharge. The
accused did not consume the medicines thereafter and they did not take the
accused to the hospital again, though they intended to take him. She further
stated that the accused used to threaten to kill or beat them, if they took him to
the hospital.
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
21. This evidence of PW.1, who is none other than the mother of the
appellant - accused explains the mental condition of the accused that he was
unwell and was not of sound mental health.
22. The Assistant Professor of Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad was
examined as DW.1 in proof of the defence of insanity taken by the appellant -
accused.
23. DW.1 stated that she was working as Assistant Professor in Institute of
Medical Health (for short "IMH"), Hyderabad since 10 years. She knew the
accused, who was present in the Court Hall. He was admitted in IMH on
09.07.2014, as he was suffering with alcohol dependence syndrome with
alcohol induced psychosis. The symptoms of the said syndrome as informed by
the family members of the patient were that the patient would run on the roads,
abuse family members, talk and laugh with self and be with disturbed sleep. On
her examination of the accused, he was unkempt (dirty) and in delusion of
reference and auditory hallucination. His family history would show that there
was no other person in the family suffered with the above said syndrome. The
accused was treated as in-patient till 17.07.2014. As the patient showed partial
improvement in the health condition, at the request of his parents, he was
discharged on 17.07.2014. On 10.07.2014, at the time of duty doctor rounds,
the accused / patient was not found on his bed. On 11.07.2014, the attendant of
the accused informed that the accused was sleepless and felt that he was dead.
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
At the time of examining the accused on 11.07.2014, he was singing songs,
refused to sit down, convinced with difficulty, showed increased anger and
elated mood and increased psychomotor activities. On 14.07.2014, the mother
of the accused informed that there was 75% improvement in the patient overall
condition. On examination, the patient showed no disruptive behavior and no
delusion and hallucinations and he was in a euphoric (happy) mood. On
15.07.2014, the mother of the accused reported no fresh complaint and on
examination, the accused / patient showed increased self esteem, euphoric mood,
delusion of grandiosity that due to his commitment, India won the World Cup
and became ZPS, he was Sachin Tendulkar and there were goddesses and he
was in happy mood. On 17.07.2014, the father of the accused reported 75%
improvement in the health condition of the accused and on her examination, the
accused showed ideas of grandeur and euphoric mood. As per her examination,
the accused showed significant improvement, but she could not quantify the
percentage. Generally, the alcohol induced psychosis could be completely
improved in six months. The accused / patient was discharged at the request of
his family members even before his complete improvement. The syndrome
might or might not repeat with the patient, if he stopped taking medicines as it
would depend on the individuals. A person who was suffering with psychosis,
sometimes might not know the act what he was doing and it would happen if the
judgment was impaired. The case sheet of the accused was marked as Ex.D3
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
and the certified copy of the Out Patient Department record was marked as
Ex.D4 through this witness.
24. This witness is not someone who is related to the accused. She is an
independent, expert witness from a reputed hospital i.e. Institute of Mental
Health at Erragadda. Her evidence would disclose that the appellant - accused
was admitted in the hospital two months before the incident with delusions and
hallucinations, which was recorded as alcohol induced psychosis. The evidence
of DW.1 also would disclose that the mother and father of the appellant -
accused accompanied him during his admission in the hospital from 09.07.2014
to 17.07.2014.
25. PW.1, deceased No.1 and the appellant - accused belonged to Boath of
Adilabad District and they had come to Hyderabad for the treatment of the
appellant - accused by leaving their occupation and other family members. The
evidence of DW.1 would disclose that on the request of the family members, the
accused was discharged from the hospital before his complete improvement.
His condition in the hospital was clearly explained by the doctor that he was in
euphoric mood and was in a delusive condition stating that he was Sachin
Tendulkar and that due to his commitment, India won the world cup and there
were goddesses, etc. DW.1 also stated that the accused had shown increased
anger, delusive mood and increased psychomotor activities and sometimes he
felt that he was dead.
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
26. The documents marked under Exs.D3 and D4 were prior to the date of
incident on 06.09.2014. Thus, they were not manipulated, fabricated or created
documents. The evidence of DW.1 is reliable to believe the mental condition of
the appellant - accused.
27. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa 5, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court discussed Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to burden of proof when
the case of the accused comes within the exceptions and also considered the
provisions under Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its
earlier judgments in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand [(2011) 11 SCC
495], Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 16 SCC 109],
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 8 SCC 66]. Devidas
Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 7 SCC 718], Dahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1964 SC 1563] and
discussed the entire law on insanity. It was held that:
"It is a fundamental principle of criminal law
that there has to be an element of mens-rea in
forming guilt with intention.
6. ... A person of an unsound mind, who is
incapable of knowing the consequence of an act,
2023 Live Law SC 71 = (2023) 5 SCC 673
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
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 imprisonment. This act cannot
be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a
deviant behavior 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 material 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 is adequate material
available before the Court, the presumption gets
discharged.
9. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act,
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
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
under Section 84 of the IPC, one has to apply
the concept of preponderance of probabilities.
The aforesaid provision has to be read along
with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
better way to reconcile the aforesaid provision
would be to have a look into the behavior and
conduct before, during and after the
occurrence."
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State
of Gujarat (cited supra), held that:
"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
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
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.
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (cited supra), held that:
"8. ... 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 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."
30. In the present case, the prosecution had not produced any evidence with
regard to the conduct of the accused immediately after the offence. What
happened to the accused, whether he fled away or remained at the scene of
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
offence, whether the weapon was taken from his hand by any of the neighbors
or villagers or police men was not stated. The behavior of the appellant -
accused immediately after the offence was not recorded by the prosecution.
31. PW.6, one of the witnesses, whose house was opposite to the house of the
accused and in whose house, the wife of the appellant - accused came running,
fell down and died stated in his cross-examination that on the same night, the
accused was taken by the police.
32. The Investigating Officers examined as PW.15, the SI of Police of PS
Boath and PW.16, the CI of Police of PS Boath Circle, had not stated about
taking the accused into custody on that night itself. They stated about his
apprehension on 11.09.2014. The charge sheet or the evidence of these
witnesses would not disclose where the accused was since the date of incident
till 11.09.2014. The charge sheet would disclose that after the arrest of the
accused, he was sent to Government Civil Hospital, Boath for health condition
and certificate. The duty doctor examined the accused and issued necessary
health condition certificate and it was stated that he opined that there were no
external injuries on the accused body. Thus, it appears that the medical
evaluation of the accused was done only with regard to his physical health
condition, but not about his mental health condition. The Investigating Officers
had not enquired about the previous history of insanity of the accused or had not
even suspected as to why the accused could have committed such heinous
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
offence of double murder against his nearest relatives i.e. his father and his wife
even without any motive against them. Thus, the investigation was not done on
that line at all. It was a serious infirmity in the prosecution case for not
collecting the evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the
offence and his conduct at that time or immediately afterwards and also not
getting his mental condition evaluated immediately.
33. Though the Investigating Officer conducted the scene of offence
panchanama immediately on the next day of the incident on 07.09.2014, he had
not seized the weapon (axe), which was used in the commission of offence. The
Investigating Officer had shown recovery of the weapon at the instance of the
accused after recording his confession panchanama on 11.09.2014. It was
recorded that the accused went inside his house and brought the weapon. As
such, the weapon was available in the house of the accused itself by 07.09.2014.
It was also stated that there were blood stains on the weapon (axe) seized by the
police. But the said weapon was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(for short "FSL") for examination. The FSL report marked under Ex.P17 would
not disclose that the weapon was sent to the FSL. All these would show the
investigation lapses.
34. PW.1 stated that she did not go to the Police Station and did not present
Ex.P1. PW.5, the scribe of Ex.P1 states that on the next day morning of the
incident, on the request of PW.1, he followed her to Boath Police Station and as
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
told by her, he drafted Ex.P1 and PW.1 presented the same to the Police. Thus,
as per this witness, they went to the Police Station on 07.09.2014. But as per
Ex.A1, it was registered on 06.09.2014 at 21:30 hours i.e. within two (02) hours
after the incident at 19:30 hours. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 is contrary to
the date and time of registration of Ex.A1.
35. When PW.1 escaped from the spot and concealed in the cattle shed of one
Edamala Chinna Reddy, when the appellant - accused attempted to kill her,
there is no chance of her witnessing the incident. But the complaint, the
evidence of PW.1 and the entire prosecution case proceeds as if she was an eye-
witness to the incident. There were no other eye-witnesses cited by the
prosecution except circumstantial witnesses.
36. Though all the circumstances cumulatively point to the guilt of the
appellant - accused, the defence of the accused also needs to be taken into
consideration, to consider whether the physical act i.e. actus-reus was
accompanied with mens-rea to commit the offence. Only when both concur, it
can be considered as an offence. The appellant - accused can establish his
defence by preponderance of probability. The evidence of DW.1 and the
admissions made by PW.1 in her cross-examination would prove that the
accused had taken treatment at the Institute of Mental Health for his mental
illness, two months prior to the date of the incident and was discharged without
complete improvement in his mental health condition. As such, the appellant is
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
successful in proving his defence that he was suffering with insanity at the time
of committing the offence and was not able to distinguish between right and
wrong and committed the incident when his mental faculties were not restored
to their original condition and when his reasoning was impaired. As such, we
are of opinion that the appellant - accused is successful in proving the defence
of insanity taken by him.
POINT No.2:
Whether the trial court committed any error in recording the
conviction and sentence against the appellant - accused?
37. The trial court though considered the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1, under
an impression that the said defence was not taken at the earliest stage by the
accused, and only after all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is
completed the said defence was taken, disbelieved the same. But the trial court
failed to consider the observations of the Court recorded in the cross-
examination of PW.1 that the counsel for the appellant - accused had not got a
chance to interact with the appellant - accused or to take instructions from him.
Only after the learned counsel came to know about the mental health condition
of the accused and about his admission in the Institute of Mental Health,
Hyderabad prior to the incident, he took steps for recalling PW.1 and for
summoning DW.1. As such, the same cannot be considered as a circumstance
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
that would go against the accused in suspecting his defence. The trial court also
committed an error in considering that there is motive for the appellant -
accused to commit the office. When there is no motive suggested by the
prosecution for the accused to commit the offence against his father and his wife,
not giving money for purchase of cell phone by his mother when he demanded
it, could not be considered as a motive to kill the deceased persons i.e. his father
and his wife. The same would disclose that the trial court committed an error in
evaluating the evidence of the witnesses, the facts and circumstances of the case
and the documents marked under Exs.D3 and D4.
POINT No.3:
To what result?
38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction
and sentence recorded by the trial court and the accused is entitled to be set free.
The appellant - accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 and 307
of IPC, with which he was charged. However, the respondent - State is directed
to send the appellant - accused to the Institute of Mental Health for evaluating
his mental health condition and to release him only after his mental health
condition is sound enough.
PSK, J & Dr.GRR, J
crla_554_2016
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any
shall stand closed.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 25th September, 2024
Nsk.
