Penal Code, 1860 – s. 394 – Arms Act, 1959 – s. 25 – The prosecution
case was that victim-complainant was caught hold by three boys armed with weapons and extorted Rs. 30,000/- from him – FIR was registered – Police apprehended all three accused persons and they confessed committing the said robbery – They were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate for a Test Identification Parade, which they refused to undergo – The Trial Court held all three D accused guilty of robbery with an attempt to cause grievous hurt and sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 397/ 34 of IPC, 5 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 392/34 of IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 25 of the Arms Act – The High Court dismissed the charge u/s. 397 and instead convicted u/s. 394 with
a reduced sentence of only two years rigorous imprisonment – Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant that he was juvenile at the time of occurrence and was undergoing treatment for a mental disorder – Held: Testimonies of the witnesses were impeccable and corroborative of each other – The crime of robbery with hurt was established – The complainant had no motive F to falsely implicate the appellant – The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings undoubtedly establish the appellant’s guilty conscience – Pleas of unsoundness of mind or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age, ought to have been raised during the trial – No evidence in the form of a birth certificate, school record
or medical test was brought forth nor any expert examination has been sought by the appellant to prove his age – Instead, the statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. showed that the appellant was above 18 years of age – Further, the plea of mental disorder also remained unsubstantiated – The conduct of appellant like running away from the spot of crime and thereafter an attempt to escape show elevated level of mental intellect – The answers recorded u/s.
313 Cr. P.C. were also not mechanical or laconic – Further, the appellant is now as per record untraceable – The plea of mental illness is a made-up story – Consequently, appellant’s bail bonds are cancelled and the respondent-State directed to take appellant into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The testimonies of the witnesses are indeed impeccable and corroborative of each other. The crime of robbery with hurt has been established by the testimony of PW-1 and the other evidence on record. The complainant (PW-1) had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant and/or to allow the real culprits to go scot-free. The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings and the lack of any reasons on the spot, undoubtedly establish the appellant’s guilty conscience and ought to be given substantial weight. The three-day delay in registration of FIR, as projected by the appellant, is devoid of factual basis. The original record shows that the complaint was, in fact, registered within a few hours of the incident on 18.05.2001. It was because of preliminary police enquiry that another two days passed between reporting and subsequent lodging of FIR on 20.05.2001. [Para 13][155-G-H; 156-A-B]
2. Pleas of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought to be raised during the trial itself. Belated claims not only prevent proper production and appreciation of evidence, but they also undermine the genuineness of the defence’s case. [Para 14] [156-B-C]
3. As noted by the High Court, no evidence in the form of a birth certificate, school record or medical test was brought forth; nor any expert examination has been sought by the appellant. Instead, the statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC shows that the appellant was above 18 years around the time of the incident, which is a far departure from the claimed age of 15 years. [Para 15][156-C-D]
4. The plea of mental disorder too remains unsubstantiated. No deposition was made by any witness, nor did the appellant himself claim any such impairment during his s.313 CrPC statement. On the contrary, his conduct of running away from the spot of the crime on 17.05.2001 as well as the attempt to escape from the bus on 20.05.2001 evidence an elevated level of mental intellect. The answers recorded in response to the questions put forth by the Additional Sessions Judge at the s. 313 CrPC stage are also not mechanical or laconic. For example, the appellant explains his refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings by alleging that his face had already been shown by the police to the complainant. [Para 16][156-E-F]
5. Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value. In order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a seriousenough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. Further, it must be established that the accused was afflicted by such disability particularly at the time of the crime and that but for such impairment, the crime would not have been committed. The reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving these defences are thus well reasoned and unimpeachable. [Para 17][156-G; 157-A]
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.