STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SHERA RAM @ VISHNU DUTTA

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 01-12-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 15 (ADOL.) S.C.R. 485 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
SHERA RAM @ VISHNU DUTTA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2005) 
DECEMBER 1, 2011 
{SWATANTER KUMAR AND 
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.84, 302, ?95 and 449 - Murder 
A 
B 
- Plea of insanity - Maintainability of - Respondent caused C 
death of deceased by hurling a stone on his head - Conviction 
by Trial Court - Acquittal by High Court primarily on the 
ground that at the time of incident, accused was a person of 
unsound mind within meaning of s. 84 - Appeal against the 
acquittal - Held: Oral and documentary evidence clearly O 
showed that respondent was suffering from epileptic attacks 
just prior to the incident - Immediately prior to the occurrence, 
he had behaved violently and had caused injuries to his own 
family members - After committing the crime, he was arrested 
by the Police and even thereafter, he was treated for insanity, 
while in jail - There was evidence to show continuous mental 
sickness of the respondent - High Court on the basis of 
documentary and oral evidence had a taken a view which was 
E 
a possible view and could not be termed as peNerse or being 
supported by no evidence - The finding of High Court, being 
F 
in consonance with the well settled principles of criminal 
jurisprudence, did not call for any interference, particularly 
when the appellant-State did not bring to the fore any 
evidence- documentary or otherwise, to persuade the 
Supreme Court to take a contrary view. 
G 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Distinction between 
appeal against acquittal and appeal against conviction -
Limitation upon the powers of the appellate court to interfere 
485 
H 
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A with the judgment of acquittal and reverse the same -
Discussed. 
Criminal Trial - Exemption from criminal liability -
Accused taking plea o( insanity - Held: A person alleged to 
B be suffering from any mental disorder cannot be exempted 
from criminal liability ipso facto - The onus would be on the 
accused to prove by expert evidence that he is suffering from 
such a mental disorder or mental condition that he could not 
be expected to be aware of the consequences of his act -
C Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder 
or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit 
hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at 
all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral 
evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek 
resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability - Penal 
D Code, 1860 - s.84. 
Respondent abruptly hurled a stone on the head of 
a person resulting into his instantaneous death. The trial 
court convicted the respondent under Sections 302, 295 
E and 449 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment 
for life. However, the High Court acquitted him primarily 
on the ground that at the time of incident, he was a person 
of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 IPC. 
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State filed the 
F present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. As evident, this is an appeal against a 
judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal has the 
G obvious consequence of granting freedom to the 
accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that 
unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, 
palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been 
taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in 
H 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHERA RAM @ VISHNU 487 
DUTIA 
view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this 
A 
Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment 
of acquittal. [Paras 8,9] [494-H; 495-A-B] 
1.2. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon 
certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to 
8 
fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is 
presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held 
to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit 
of such presumption which could be interfered with only 
for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal 
C 
has always been differentiated from a normal appeal 
against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts 
and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court 
would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the 
judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is 
not called for. [Para 1 OJ [495-C-D] 
D 
1.3. There is a very thin but a fine d

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