MOTIRAM MAROTI DHULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined ten witnesses in support of the charge. The trial Court accepted the eye witness account of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and after rejecting the plea of insanity raised by the appellant, found him guilty of the charge of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The period of detention undergone by him in connection with the offence was ordered to be set off in terms of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal.

(2.) Though the learned Advocate for the appellant assailed the evidence of the eye witnesses yet the substantial arguments were advanced before us in connection with the plea of insanity taken by the appellant which according to the learned Advocate for the appellant had been wrongly rejected even though there was ample evidence on record in support of the said plea,

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the appellant had examined his father and brother who had spoken of the mental condition of the appellant prior to the incident; that the circumstances at the time of commission of the offence clearly establish that the appellant not only did not know the nature of the act but he was incapable of knowing, as to what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law since the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind. We shall refer to the circumstances pointed out by him while dealing with this aspect on merit. He also pointed out that the appellant neither made any attempt to conceal the commission of the crime nor he tried to abscond and that even subsequently the appellant was found to be suffering from lunacy by the Civil Surgeon to whom he was referred during the course of the trial. He, therefore, contends that in the light of the evidence on record, it is not possible to attribute mens rea to the appellant and that the act of the appellant is an instance of unsoundness of mind falling under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.