Sita Ram Singh v. State of Bihar — 1998 DIGILAW 107 (PAT)

JUDGMENT R.N. Prasad & P.K. Sarkar, JJ. - The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1986 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.T. No. 48/19 of 1980/83 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. One Vidyanand Singh, Mukhia of Jogni Ganiari Gram Panchayat sent a written report on 29.10.1978 through the Chaukidar to the Officer-in-charge of Sakra Police Station stating therein that Sita Ram Singh committed murder of Satyanarain Singh at 12 noon. Now he is not in sound condition of mind. He may commit further offence. He requested to come to the place of occurrence to maintain peace. 3. On the aforesaid written report (Ext. 1) a formal First Information Report (Ext. 4) was drawn up and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the court took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as stated above. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. In the written statement specific defence was taken that the appellant was suffering from insanity. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant and is a hear-say witness. P.W. 2 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 & 6 reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw the appellant with blood stained Garasi. P.W 7 is Chaukidar who took the written report to the officer-in-charge of Sakra Police Station. P.W. 8 was declared hostile. P.W.9 is Doctor who held post mortem over the dead body. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.11 is also a Doctor who examined the appellant. 6. Out of the witnesses as stated above, P.W.3 is cousin of the deceased and also related to the appellant. P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased. P.W.5 is wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is daughter of the deceased and is an eye witness to the occurrence. She was aged about 13 years at the relevant time. She stated in her evidence that she was in her cattle shed which was adjacent to the cattle shed of the appellant. P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased. P.W.5 is wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is daughter of the deceased and is an eye witness to the occurrence. She was aged about 13 years at the relevant time. She stated in her evidence that she was in her cattle shed which was adjacent to the cattle shed of the appellant. The appellant is nephew of her father, the deceased. On the date of occurrence at about 11 A.M. the appellant gave two blows with fodder cutting Garasi on the neck of her father at his cattle shed. Her father fell down and died then and there. She raised hulla on which the appellant started brandishing the fodder cutting Garasi. People came' on hearing hulla at the place of occurrence and snatched the blood stained Garasi from the appellant. They handed over the Garasi to her and she handed over the same to the Investigating Officer in presence of Chakradhar Singh (P.W.6) and Jugal Singh (P.W.4). In cross-examination she denied the suggestion that appellant had gone for treatment in Kankey Mental Hospital at Ranchi, the appellant was insane or he was insane at the time of committing crime. 7. PWs.3, 4, 5 & 6 have stated that they came at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla. They found Satyanarain Singh dead and injury on his neck. P.Ws.3 & 4 stated that they found the appellant at the place of occurrence with the blood stained fodder cutting Garasi. P.Ws.5 & 6 stated that they found Sita Ram Singh, the appellant, at the spot who told that he committed murder of Satyanarain Singh with Garasi. PWs. 3 & 4 have stated that they are cousins of the deceased and uncle of the appellant. P.W.3 has stated in his cross-examination that the decased had some land dispute with the appellant. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the appellant but nothing cogent was elicited to doubt the testimony of the witnesses. 8. P.W.1 is Mukhia of the Jogni Ganiari Gram Panchayat on whose written report First Information Report was lodged. He did not claim to have seen the occurrence. In the written report it was stated that now the appellant was not in a fit condition of mind and, accordingly, requested the Officer- in-charge to come to maintain peace. 8. P.W.1 is Mukhia of the Jogni Ganiari Gram Panchayat on whose written report First Information Report was lodged. He did not claim to have seen the occurrence. In the written report it was stated that now the appellant was not in a fit condition of mind and, accordingly, requested the Officer- in-charge to come to maintain peace. P.W.1, the Mukhia, has stated in his evidence that on hearing hulla he went to the place of occurrence and found Satyanarain Singh lying dead in the Bathan of the appellant. He also found bleeding injuries on his person. The appellant was brandishing the Garasi. He is witness to the production of the blood stained Garasi and signed the production list (Ext.7). He is also witness to the inquest report (Ext. 5). The witness in his cross-examination stated that the appellant was not in a fit condition of mind from before. Sometimes he used to chase the persons due to which the villagers were frightened. He further stated that the appellant was insane and he committed offence in insane state of mind. 9. P.W.7 is Chaukidar and formal witness who took written report (Ext. 1) to the Officer-in-charge of Sakra Police Station. P.W.9 is Doctor who held post mortem over the dead body on 31.10.1978 at 1 P.M. He found two incised injuries on the neck of deceased Satyanarain Singh caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Garasi. The Doctor has opined that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that time elapsed since death at the time of pest mortem examination was about 48 hours. Thus the medical evidence supports the prosecution case on the point of weapon used and time of occurrence. 10. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer who stated in his evidence that he visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased at the Bathan of the appellant. He prepared inquest report (Ext.5) in presence of the witnesses. He found blood at the place of occurrence. He seized the blood and prepared seizure list (Ext.6) in presence of witnesses, namely, P.Ws.4 & 6. He further stated that the blood stained Garasi was produced before him. He prepared production list (Ext.7) in presence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. He found blood at the place of occurrence. He seized the blood and prepared seizure list (Ext.6) in presence of witnesses, namely, P.Ws.4 & 6. He further stated that the blood stained Garasi was produced before him. He prepared production list (Ext.7) in presence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. Thus it appears that the Investigating Officer found objective material at the place of occurrence which supports the prosecution case. 11. P.W.11 is the Doctor who has stated in his evidence that he examined the appellant on 21.10.1978. He was addicted to Bhang and Ganja. He was not suffering from insanity. Abnormal behaviour of the appellant was due to taking Bhang and Ganja. Thus from the evidence of P.W.11 it is manifest that the appellant was not suffering from insanity rather the appellant was addicted to Bhang and Ganja. 12. Thus from the discussions made above, it is evident that there is no infirmity in the evidence of eye witness, P.W.2 and trustworthy. Her evidence has been corroborated by other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.3, 4, 5 & 6 who came at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and found the appellant with blood stained Garasi. P.W.1 is not an eye witness but he also stated in his evidence that he went to the place of occurrence and found the appellant brandishing blood stained Garasi. The evidence of Doctor (P.W.9) who held post-mortem over the dead body also supports the prosecution case on the point of use of weapon and time of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has also found incriminating materials and prepared seizure list. P.W.11 also does not say that appellant was suffering from insanity. Thus we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, pointed out that P.W.2 is only eye witness to the occurrence and, therefore, conviction of the appellant on sole testimony of P.W.2 cannot be upheld. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that for proving a fact there is no need of number of witnesses but it depends upon the quality of evidence. Section 134 of the Evidence Act is very much relevant for the purpose. It says that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Section 134 of the Evidence Act is very much relevant for the purpose. It says that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. We have considered the evidence of P.W.2 and have found her evidence trustworthy. She was cross-examined by the defence but nothing was elicited to doubt her testimony. The evidence of the witness has been 'corroborated by P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 & 6 who went to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and found the appellant with blood stained fodder cutting Garasi at the spot. The evidence of the sole eye witness P.W.2 has also been corroborated by Medical evidence on the point of time of occurrence and the weapon used for committing the crime. The Investigating Officer also found incriminating materials and prepared seizure list. Therefore, we find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that admittedly alarm was raised by P.W.2 and she has stated in her evidence that people tame at the spot but no independent witness was examined in support of the prosecution case. The witnesses examined are relations of the deceased. In this regard it is relevant to mention herein that there is no rule of law that evidence of relation witness should be thrown out outright rather requirement under the law is that evidence of such witness should be scrutinised with care and caution. We have considered the evidence of such witnesses with care and caution but we do not find anything in their evidence to doubt their testimony. Furthermore, occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the Bathan of the appellant. The witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 & 6 have categorically stated that their houses are near out the place of occurrence. They heard alarm and went to the place of occurrence. In such a situation it is natural that the witnesses who were in the vicinity of the place of occurrence reached there and saw the dead body of Satyanarain Singh in the cattle shed of the appellant and the appellant standing there with the blood stained Garasi. Furthermore, the deceased is the uncle of the appellant. P.Ws.3 & 4 have categorically, stated that they are cousin of the deceased and are uncle of the appellant. Furthermore, the deceased is the uncle of the appellant. P.Ws.3 & 4 have categorically, stated that they are cousin of the deceased and are uncle of the appellant. Thus on consideration as discussed above, we do not find any substance in the submission. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant next pointed out that the appellant was insane. He committed the offence while he has suffering from insanity. He pointed out written report (Ext. 1) wherein it has been stated that the appellant was now not in a fit condition of mind. He also pointed out the evidence of P.W1 who stated in his evidence that the appellant was not in a fit condition of mind and was suffering from insanity from before. He committed the offence in a insane state of mind and hence he is entitled to protection under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code which says that, "nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of act, or that he doing what is either wrong or contrary to law". Learned counsel, accordingly, says that even though the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case the appellant is entitled to acquittal in view of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention that it is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution who has to establish the case and it never shifts upon the accused person. However, Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is an exception to the general principle. Section 105 of Evidence Act deals with regard to exception to general rule and it says that when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exception in the Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Therefore, it is manifest that burden of proving exception to the general principle lies on the accused. 16. The appellant in the instant case has claimed protection under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and thus it is for the appellant to establish that offence was committed while he was suffering from insanity. The Apex Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court- 1563 has held that the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the place of insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had commited the offence with the requiste mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was is not insane when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by S. 84 of the Penal Code the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more ,of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case 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. Further the Apex Court in the case of Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs. State of Maharashtra, A. I. R. 1972 Supreme Court-2443 has held that, "in order to see whether the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence, the state of his mind before and after the commission of the offence is relevant. The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or, the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, would not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. 17. In the instant case no witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant to establish that he was insane from before and at the time of commission of crime he was suffering from insanity. P.W.1 has stated in the written report that after committing murder the appellant was not in a fit condition of mind. In court he has stated that the appellant was not in a fit condition of mind from before. Sometimes he used to chase the persons. He was suffering from insanity from before and had committed the occurrence in insane state of mind. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.2, an eye witness to the occurrence, has categorically denied the suggestion that the appellant was suffering from insanity and was treated in the Kankey Mental Hospital at Ranchi or he committed murder in state of insanity. P.W.11 who examined the appellant on 21.10.1978 i.e. about 8 days ago of the alleged occurrence, has categorically stated that the appellant was not suffering from insanity. However, he has stated that he was addicted to Bhang and Ganja but there is no evidence on the record that the appellant had taken Bhang or Ganja at the relevant time of the occurrence or he committed offence in state of intoxication. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the witnesses have stated that the appellant was standing at the place of occurrence with the blood stained Garasi itself is indicative of the fact that he was insane. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that mere behaviour cannot lead to a conclusion that the man was insane and he committed offence in the state of insanity. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that mere behaviour cannot lead to a conclusion that the man was insane and he committed offence in the state of insanity. It was burden of the appellant to establish the case of insanity and he committed offence in the state of insanity but from the material on record as discussed above, we do not find anything to hold that the appellant committed offence in the state of insanity. 18. Thus on consideration as discussed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the trial court to serve remaining period of sentence failing which the court below shall take necessary steps to apprehend the appellant for the said purpose.