PRAKASH SAHA, S/O BHAGWAN PRASAD SAHA, R/O RANIPOOL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. RANIPOOL, EAST SIKKIM Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM REPRESENTED BY AND THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE LD. ADVOCATE GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition seeks to assail the impugned judgment dated 30 -04 -2012 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I, Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal Case No. 01 of 2011 by which the judgment and order of sentence dated 05 -05 -2010 of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, in G.R. Case No. 50 of 2006 convicting the Revisionist under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC) was upheld by dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Revisionist. The Revisionist had been tried in G. R. Case No. 50 of 2006 on being sent up for trial by the Ranipool Police under Ranipool Police Case No. 09(4)06 dated 03 ª04 -2006 under Sections 498A/284/325 of the IPC based upon an investigation arising out of a FIR dated 03 -04 ª2006 filed by P.W. 1, Bhagwan Prasad Saha, the father of the Revisionist, stating that on that day at about 7/7.10 p.m. the Revisionist had poured acid over his wife, Rinku Devi, resulting in the right side of her face being severely burnt and was in a critical condition and had to be evacuated to the Central Referral Hospital, Tadong, Gangtok (in short "CRH") for treatment. On completion of the investigation, the Revisionist was found prima facie guilty of having committed the offences aforesaid and the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom he was tried, ultimately found him guilty of commission of the offence under Section 326 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fin e of Rs. 5,000/ -and in default to go simple imprisonment for a period of one more month.

(2.) AS observed earlier, on Appeal the impugned judgment of the Learned Trial Court was upheld by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I. Delving further into the facts of the case is felt unnecessary as being immaterial for the purpose of disposing of the Revision Petition since in the present proceeding the parties have proceeded on an admitted position as regards the merits of the decisions of both the Learned Trial Court and the Learned Appellate Court and have confined themselves to a very limited question as regards the non -consideration of the plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC raised by the Revisionist both at the trial as well as before the Learned Appellate Court. Having thus set out the question for determination, I may now deal with the plea raised on behalf of the Revisionist.

(3.) (i). Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Revisionist, submits that the findings of the Learned Trial Court as well as Learned Appellate Court on the plea of insanity is perverse and is in conflict with the glaring evidence apparent on the face of the record. It is his case that the fact that the Revisionist was of unsound mind and was suffering from mental disorder was established by the prosecution witnesses themselves. Reference was made to the evidence of -