LexBIDKARI versus STATE OF UITAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BIDKARI v. STATE OF UITAR PRADESH February 25, 1965 A. I [K. N. WANCHOO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR ANDS. M. SIKRI, JI.] B Criminal Trial-Insanity-Burden of proving-Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 84-Indian Evidence Aot (1 of 1872), s. 105. The appellant who killed a child in a cruel manner and injured others was tried and convicted under s. 302 Indian Penal Code, and his appeal before the High Court also failed. In his statement at the trial he did not specifically plead insanity but in both the· courts C: the plea that being insane he could not be credited with the inten- tion .requisite for the offence alleged was raised on his behalf. In appeal, by special leave. before the Supreme Court, it was urged on his behalf that despite the provisions of s. 105 Indian Evidence Act the burden of proving that the accu;ed had the requisite inten- tion and therefore of proving that he was not insane was on the prosecution. The argument was sought to be supported by certain observations of the Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar's I> case. . HELD: (i) The burden of proving the intention of the accused person, where intention is an ingredient of the offence is on the prosecution and this burden never shifts. But intention can some- times be only proved from circumstances and therefore it is suffi- cient for the prosecution to prove the acts of the accused and the circumstances in which they were committed. If from these an in- E. ference of the requisite intention can be reasonably drawn, the pro- secution must be deemed to have discharged its burden. rrn6 G-197Bl (ii) Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can no doubt be invoked by a person for nullifying the evidence adduced by the prosecution by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of know- ing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or F contrary to law. The prosecution need not give evidence about the capacity of the accused to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law because these afe matters of presumption. Everyone is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly everyone is presumed to know the law. It is for this reason · that s. 105 of the Evidence Act places upon the accused person the burden of proving the exception on which he relies. [197 B-Dl G (iii) The second part of s. 105 lays down that the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances on the basis of which the case could be said to come under a· General Exception. But this pre- sumption is rebuttable and the accused can rebut it either by lead- ing evidence or by relying upon the prosecution evidence itself. If upon the evidence adduced in the case whether by the prosecution or by the accused a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the R court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence includ- ing mens rea of the accused, he would· be entitled to be acquitted. This is very different from saying that the prosecution must also establish the sanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the off~nce despite what has been expressly provided for in s. 105 of the Evidence Act. [196. E; 198 A-C] Dahabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, [19641 7 S.C.R. 361, explained and affirmed. BBIKARI II. STATE (ilffldholJ&at, J.) Hiil A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. B 263 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 2, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1964 and Ref. No. 15 of 1964. S. P. Varma, for the appellant. 0. P. Rana, for the respondent.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. The appellant has appealed from the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad affirming his conviction for offences 0 under ss. 302, 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code and confirming the sentence of death passed upon him in respect of the offence under s. 302 and also affirming the sentences passed in respect" of the other two olfences. The facts as found by the High Court are these: D The appellant had quarrelled with Mangali, PW 1, as Mangali reprimanded him over the grazing of his cattle in Mangali's field and damaging his crops. The appellant threatened Mangali that he would exterminate the latter's family. On February 25, 1957 at about 3-00 p.m. Babu Ram son of Mangali, aged about 7 or 8 years, Ram Ratia, aged about 2 years, daughter of Mangali's • bro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.