Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-accused had attacked the victimdeceased with sharp-edged weapon causing his death – Appellant pleaded insanity:
Held: During preliminary examination, CW-1-doctor categorically deposed that going by the case history of the accused prepared by the Hospital, appellant had earlier been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder – As per the opinion of this witness, the appellantaccused seemed to have major depressive disorder with psychotic feature – On examination, the appellant-accused was found to have partially impaired judgment due to perceptive auditory hallucinations – The medicines prescribed were for the accused’s psychiatric ailments and the ailment was relapse able and there is every chance of attack anytime – Apart from the above medical evidence, the abnormal/insane behaviour of the appellant-accused at the time of the assault – In her cross-examination, PW-13 admits that accused-appellant even told her that he did not know as to what he had done to his grandfather/deceased – The other villagers who reached at the spot soon after the incident have stated that when they arrived at the spot the appellant-accused was present and was not trying to flee from there – This behaviour of the appellant-accused was not of a normal person – Also, when the appellant-accused was arrested, PW578
14 medically examined him and found that he appeared to be clinically under the influence of some psychotropic substance – It is also to be seen that after the appellant-accused attacked the deceased by a sharp-edged weapon which was later snatched by PW-1, he was trying to take out the windpipe from the neck of the deceased which was already cut – This action of the appellant-accused was weird and abnormal – This is clearly indicative of the fact that he was suffering from insanity at the time of incident – Therefore, the High Court erred in setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. [Paras 16, 17 and 18] Appeal – Appellate Court – Reversal of acquittal:
Held: It is settled that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence – If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the fi ndings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. [Para 24]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84 – Legal insanity and medical insanity – discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XXV – discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [1964] 7 SCR 361; Prakash Nayi Alias Sen v. State of Goa (2023) 5 SCC 673 – relied on.
State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan (2011) 8 SCC 65 : [2011] 7 SCR 1099; Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 718 : [2018] 7 SCR 767; Ratan Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1970) 3 SCC
533 : [1971] 3 SCR 251; Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495 : [2011] 1 SCR 133; Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC 109 : [2008] 12 SCR 949; Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC
66 : [2007] 7 SCR 917 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.