Brief Facts
- That the Appellant murdered his grandfather. The daughter of the deceased filed a FIR against the Appellant stating that the Appellant has murdered the 80 years old deceased with a sharp-edged weapon. A chargesheet was submitted for offences under Section 302 of the IPC, before the beginning of the Trial, the convict raised a plea of insanity. Thereafter, he was referred to the Psychiatric Unit of the STNM Hospital, Gangtok for examination of his mental state.
- The Trial Court considered the matter within the ambit of Section 84 of IPC and concluded that the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts by reason of unsoundness of mind and it is highly probable that he was unaware of what he was doing. Thus, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant. An appeal was preferred by the State of Sikkim before the High Court, whereby the acquittal order was reversed, and the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s order of acquittal of Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC without proving the trial court’s decision as perverse or devoid of
- Whether the case of the appellant-accused falls within the exception under Section 84 of IPC or not?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the
- 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 re appreciation 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 findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. See State of Rajasthan vs. Abdul Mannan (2011 8 SCC65).
- In the case at hand, the High Court had reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the appellant mainly on reappreciation of evidence by holding that the Trial Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 84 of IPC, without even recording a finding that the Trial Court’s finding is perverse.
- In Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495), Hari Singh Gond vs. State of M.P. ((2008) 16 SCC 109) and Bapu vs. State of Rajasthan ((2007) 8 SCC 66) this Court has held that an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Since the term insanity or unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Penal Code, it carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity.
- In the light of the evidence discussed by the Trial Court including the medical evidence about the mental illness of the appellant-accused and his abnormal behaviour at the time of occurrence, it does not appear that the view taken by the Trial Court was perverse or that it was based on without any evidence.
Relevant Para No.
- 22, 24, 25, 26