LOHIT CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction of the accused under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on the first count and imposing no sentence on the second count, passed by Shri G.C. Phukan, Sessions Judge, Gauhati in Sessions Case No. 11(K-G) 83.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused was a student aged about 18 years at all relevant time. On 12.7.81 at about 12.30 p.m. he ran amuck in the village, entered the house of P.W. Han Charan Das, picked up a dao and chased towards persons who could be seen. At that time one Surjya Das a ten years old kid came and the accused dealt dao blow, continued to chase persons and attacked them. Some sustained injuries. Ultimately the villagers over powered the accused and made him over to police along with the dao. Suriya Das died on the spot. A case was registered, the police commenced investigation and on completion thereof, submitted a charge sheet against the accused who in due course was committed to the court of Sessions to stand his trial. As the accused was undefended the court engaged State Defence. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including two doctors and 2 (two) police officers. On behalf of the accused four witnesses were examined including two doctors. P.W. 1. Dr. P.C. Sarmah held the post mortem Examination on the dead body of Surjya and proved the injuries in consequence of which Surjya had died. P.W. 2, Dr. Tarun Chandra Das proved the injuries of four persons. All these injuries were cut injuries and inflicted by dao. P.W. 3, Usha Bala Das, P.W. 4, Nami Bala Das, P.W. 5, Had Charan Das, P.W. 6, Tarun Chandra Das, P.W. 7, Satya Bala Das, P.W. 8, Arun Chandra Das, P.W. 10, Smti. Bagi Bala Das are the witnesses to prove the incident. P.Ws 11 and 12 are the policeofficers. P.W. 6, Tamn, P.W. 7, Satya Bala Das and P.W. 8, Arun Chandra Das were injured and sustained injuries, which were proved by P.W. 2, Dr. T.C. Das. The plea taken by the defence was that of insanity. The accused, while under examination, stated that he was totally all aware as to what he had done and what he had seen at the relevant time, even could not recollect as to whether he was tied by the villagers at any time and claimed that he was mentally deranged at the time of the occurrence.

(3.) The sale contention raised before us is that the accused was of unsound mind at the time when he went out, picked up the dao and dealt dao blows, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Indeed, nothing is an offence, which is done by a person of unsound mind under the circumstances set out above. It is a general exception to the rule contained in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code. To bring a case within the ambit of Section 84, it is said, the burden is on the prisoner. Insanity or unsoundness of mind is an exception to the penal law. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove all the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable period. In a case of homicide as well as offence of causing hurt or grievous hurt the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the requisite intention or knowledge ingrained in Sections 299, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. Section 84 I.P.C. provides an exception to the general rule contained in the Penal Code where the plea of the accused is unsoundness of mind, which incapacitated his faculties to know the nature of his acts or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception attracts section 105 of the Evidence Act; which lays down that the burden of proving the existence of the circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused, as the court is to presume and continue to presume the absence of the exceptional circumstances. However, Section 105 of the Evidence Act must be read along with the definition of the expressions shall presume in section 4 of the Evidence Act and the combined reading of both the Sections bring in force that the court shall regard the absence of the exceptional circumstances as proved, unless after considering the matters before it, the court believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, would act upon the supposition that they did exist. The presumption that such circumstances did exist must be put forward by the accused. The material must be sufficient, at least to make a reasonable person to believe the existence of the said circumstances probable and to act upon them. The materials may be oral evidence, documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or may stem from the prosecution evidence. The accused is to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge to ponder as to whether the accused had the requisite criminal intention described in Sec. 299 and/or other provisions of the Code. If the Judge has a reasonable doubt he has to acquit the accused for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. Were of the view that the rules of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity are -(a) that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed by the accused with the requisite mensrea and the burden continues from the beginning till the end of the trial; (b) that it is a rebut-table presumption that the prisoner was not insane when he committed an offence in the sense set forth in Section 84 I.P.C. (c) that the accused may rebut the presumption of sanity at the relevant time bringing the case within Section 84 I.P.C. by producing oral, documentary, circumstantial and other materials and he may discharge the burden by establishing a reasonably probable case. The accused is not called upon to establish the elements of Section 84 I.P.C. by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt; and (iv) that even the accused fails to establish affirmatively or conclusively that he was of unsound mind and committedthe acts under the circumstances set out in Section 84 I.P.C. but raises a reasonable doubt in the mind ofT the court as regards presence of the essential ingredients of the offence, which of course includes mensrea, the requisite criminal intention, 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. We are also of the view that Section 6 of the Indian Penal Code is an extra-ordinary provision, which obligates the court to consider whether a case is covered by any of the exceptions under Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code. Section 6, I.P.C. in our opinion, should be read as a proviso to Section 105, Indian Evidence Act. That apart, section 6 of the Code imposes a statutory obligation on the court to consider as to whether a case is covered by exception or not. The view that we have expressed is drawn from the decision of the Supreme Court in Dayabhai Chhagan Bhai v. State of Gujarat1 Ratan Lal v. State of M.P.2 Abdul Latif v. State of Assam3, and Kumari Sunita Debi v. State of Assam4.