DEVIDAS LOKA RATHOD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 02-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
DEVIDAS LOKA RATHOD
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2017)
JULY 02, 2018
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 324 and 84 – Murder – Plea of
unsound mind – Prosecution case that appellant assaulted few with
sickle, which resulted in death of one – Appellant then tried to flee
from the place of occurrence after throwing the weapon but was
apprehended by villagers – Plea of unsoundness of mind by
appellant – Rejected by the courts below and conviction of the
appellant u/ss. 302, 324 – On appeal, held: In view of the previous
history of insanity of the appellant, it was the duty of the investigator
to subject the accused to medical examination immediately and place
the evidence before the court – Prosecution deliberately withheld
relevant evidence with regard to the nature of the appellant’s mental
illness, his mental condition at the time of assault, requiring
hospitalization immediately after the assault and hindering his arrest,
the diagnosis and treatment, and the evidence of the treating doctor
– Courts below erred in proper consideration and appreciation of
evidence, virtually abjuring all such evidence available raising
doubts about the mental status of the appellant at the time of
commission of the offence – In view thereof, appellant entitled to
benefit of the exception u/s. 84 because of the preponderance of
his medical condition at the time of occurrence – Prosecution cannot
be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt –
Thus, appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and is acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 P.W.14-sub inspector, in his examination-in-
chief, stated that the appellant was caught immediately after he
made the assault and brought to the police station. The FIR was
registered the same day. But the appellant was taken in custody
two days later because he was not keeping well and had been
admitted in the hospital. The information of his arrest was not
[2018] 7 S.C.R. 767
767
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
given to his sister or mother, but only to his friend who has not
been examined. In view of the previous history of insanity of the
appellant as revealed, it was the duty of an honest investigator to
subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and
place the evidence before the court and if this is not done, it
creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit
of doubt has to be given to the accused. The admitted facts in the
instant case strongly persuades to believe that the prosecution
had deliberately withheld relevant evidence with regard to the
nature of the appellant’s mental illness, his mental condition at
the time of assault, requiring hospitalization immediately after
the assault and hindering his arrest, the diagnosis and treatment,
the evidence of the treating doctor, all of which necessarily casts
a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence raising
more than reasonable doubts about the mental condition of the
appellant. Unfortunately, both the trial court and the High Court,
have completely failed to consider and discuss this very important
lacuna in the prosecution case, decisively crucial for determination
or abjurement of the guilt of the appellant. [Para 9][774-A-E]
1.2 The law presumes that every person committing an
offence is sane and liable for his acts, though in specified
circumstances it may be rebuttable. Section 84 IPC carves out
an exception, that an act will not be an offence, if done by a person,
who at the time of doing the same, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is
doing is either wrong or contrary to law. But this onus on the
accused, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is not as stringent
as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable
doubts. The accused has only to establish his defence on a
preponderance of probability, after which the onus shall shift on
the prosecution to establish the inapplicability of the exception.
But, it is not every and any plea of unsoundness of mind that will
suffice. The standard of test to be applied shall be of legal insanity
and not medical insanity. [Paras 10, 11][774-E-F; 775-C-E]
1.3 The crucial point of time for considering the defence
plea of unsoundness of mind has to be with regard to the mental
state of the accused at the time the offence was committed collated
from evidence of c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.