Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 636 (BOM)

Sanjay Nagorao Pote v. State of Maharashtra

2018-03-05

SWAPNA JOSHI, VASANTI A.NAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vasanti A Naik, J. 1. By this Criminal Appeal, the appellant-Sanjay has challenged the judgment of the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 12.4.2016 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2015 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in-default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in-default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. According to the prosecution case, Ramdas Govinda Pote, who is the paternal uncle of appellant Sanjay had lodged a report on 17.10.2014 stating therein that he was residing in his house with his wife Shakuntala, son Vitthal, daughter-in-law Manisha and granddaughter Suhani. According to Ramdas, one of his daughters was married and was residing in her matrimonial home and his other son was residing at Rampur. It is stated that his younger son viz. Vitthal used to reside with him with his family and used to run a Kirana Shop. It is stated that his elder brother, namely Nagorao was residing with his family in the adjacent house. Nagorao had two sons and one daughter and his elder son Kawadu had died. Accused Sanjay was his second son and he was residing with his wife and children with his father Nagorao. It is alleged in the complaint that from about 10 to 12 days prior to the occurrence of the crime on 16.10.2014, Sanjay used to proclaim that Lord Hanuman had entered into his body and used to start worshiping him by calling all the members of his family. It is alleged that Sanjay used to proclaim that he was a godly person and God was residing in him. It is alleged that on 16.10.2014 when Vitthal returned from work at about 9.30 pm, appellant Sanjay entered into the house of Ramdas at about 1.00 O'clock in the midnight. It is alleged that appellant Sanjay told the members in the family of Ramdas that there was a ghost in their house and that God had asked him to remove the ghost by practicing exorcism. It is alleged that appellant Sanjay told the members in the family of Ramdas that there was a ghost in their house and that God had asked him to remove the ghost by practicing exorcism. It is alleged that Sanjay started slapping all the members of the family of Ramdas, ordered them to take bath and operated the water pump in the courtyard of the house of Ramdas. It is alleged in the complaint that Sanjay drenched all the members of the family of Ramdas with water, thrust the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal, sat on his chest and started shouting that he would remove the ghost from the body of Vitthal. It is alleged that since Sanjay was saying that nobody should come in between him and Vitthal, Ramdas and the members of his family did not intervene till Vitthal was motionless as he had apparently expired due to the thrusting of the water pipe in his mouth. It is alleged that after Vitthal stopped moving Sanjay turned towards the others viz. Ramdas and his family members and again drenched them with water. It is alleged that Sanjay then took a stone and hit it on the back of Ramdas. Ramdas sustained a bleeding injury on his head and screamed. It is alleged that the villagers came to rescue but Sanjay stood on the gate of the house and informed the people not to enter into the compound, as there was God in his body. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Ramdas, an FIR was registered against Sanjay for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code. The investigation commenced after the police arrived at the spot and conducted the spot panchanama. After the investigation was completed, the charge was framed against Sanjay. Sanjay pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Ramdas, who was the eyewitness to the crime and also examined two doctors that had conducted the postmortem of Vitthal and had medically examined both Ramdas and Vitthal. The prosecution examined three other witnesses including the investigating officer. Sanjay also examined a doctor in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court, by the judgment dated 12.4.2016, convicted appellant Sanjay of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code. The prosecution examined three other witnesses including the investigating officer. Sanjay also examined a doctor in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court, by the judgment dated 12.4.2016, convicted appellant Sanjay of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code. The judgment of the trial court is challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 3. Shri Jaltare, the learned counsel for appellant Sanjay, submitted that it is apparent from the evidence on record that Sanjay was not of sound mind and was not capable of knowing the nature of the act that was committed by him in the midnight between 16.10.2014 and 17.10.2014. It is stated that the case of appellant Sanjay would be governed by section 85 of the Penal Code that provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it is by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he is doing. It is stated that no doubt the burden of proving the plea of insanity is on the accused himself but the accused is entitled to discharge the burden either on the basis of the evidence tendered by him or by relying on the evidence of the prosecution that supports him in proving his case. It is submitted that the admissions of Ramdas, in his cross-examination would clearly shows that Sanjay was behaving like an abnormal person from about 10 to 12 days before 16.10.2014 and he was committing such acts which could show that he was not mentally sound at the relevant time. It is stated that it could be gathered from the prosecution story that Sanjay was incapable of understanding the nature of the act which he was doing on 16.10.2014, as a result of which Vitthal had died. It is submitted that it is apparent from the evidence of Ramdas that Sanjay had entered into the house of Ramdas at 1.00 O'clock in the midnight shouting that he was a Godly person and that he wanted to remove the ghost from the house of Ramdas. It is stated that Sanjay then operated the motor-pump affixed to the well, drenched all the family members of Ramdas with water, thrust the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal, sat on his chest and shouted that he was removing the ghost. It is stated that Sanjay then operated the motor-pump affixed to the well, drenched all the family members of Ramdas with water, thrust the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal, sat on his chest and shouted that he was removing the ghost. It is stated that the prosecution has not proved that Sanjay either had the intention to kill Vitthal or that he had a motive to kill him. It is stated that in the absence of any proof in this regard, it is necessary to hold on the basis of the prosecution case itself that Sanjay was not capable of understanding the nature of the act committed by him in the midnight between 16.10.2014 and 17.10.2014. It is submitted that it could be gathered from the first information report, as also the evidence of Ramdas that there was no enmity between the family members of Ramdas and the family members of Nagorao. It is submitted that in the absence of any enmity or quarrel between the two brothers namely Ramdas and Nagorao and their family, it cannot be said that Sanjay had the motive or the intention to kill Vitthal. It is submitted that the evidence of DW1 Dr. Imran Ali was not appreciated by the trial court in the right perspective. It is submitted that it is apparent from the evidence of Imran Ali and the admissions of Ramdas in his cross-examination that Sanjay was not mentally sound when he committed the act on 16.10.2014 and he was not capable of understanding the nature of the act that he was doing. It is submitted that though the trial court has referred to several reported judgments, it has failed to appreciate the evidence tendered by the prosecution and the defence in a proper manner. It is submitted that the trial court has unnecessarily given undue weightage to the behaviour of Sanjay during the trial, though his behaviour, at the time of the trial, would not be relevant for deciding the question, whether he was not of sound mind at the relevant time when he committed the act. It is submitted that the trial court has unnecessarily given undue weightage to the behaviour of Sanjay during the trial, though his behaviour, at the time of the trial, would not be relevant for deciding the question, whether he was not of sound mind at the relevant time when he committed the act. It is stated that the fact that neither Ramdas nor his family members had prevented Sanjay from slapping them, drenching them with water or thrusting the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal or would clearly show that they were also aware that Sanjay was not behaving like a normal person for more than 10 to 12 days, as is alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 to substantiate his submission. It is submitted that even assuming that Sanjay was of sound mind and was mentally fit at the time of commission of the crime, still the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that he had intended to commit the offence of culpable homicide. It is stated that it is not the case of the prosecution that Sanjay had with the intention of causing the death of Vitthal, thrust the water pipe in his mouth. 4. Shri Bissa, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, has supported the judgment of the trial court. It is submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties to record a finding that Sanjay had failed to prove that he was not mentally sound or was incapable knowing the nature of the act due to unsoundness of mind. It is submitted that the trial court has rightly relied on the evidence of the doctors examined on behalf of the prosecution, as also appellant Sanjay to hold that Sanjay did not suffer from any mental illness at the relevant time. It is submitted that to prove his case under Section 84 of the Penal Code, it was necessary for Sanjay to produce some medical certificates to show that at the relevant time he was treated for schizophrenia or any other mental illness. It is submitted that to prove his case under Section 84 of the Penal Code, it was necessary for Sanjay to produce some medical certificates to show that at the relevant time he was treated for schizophrenia or any other mental illness. It is submitted that DW1 Imran Ali, who had examined Sanjay in the prison, did not have any occasion to see or examine Sanjay at the time of the incident. It is submitted that the trial court has rightly considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments that are referred to by the trial court to hold that Sanjay had failed to prove that he was suffering from schizophrenia. It is submitted that it is clearly proved from the evidence of Ramdas that Sanjay had committed the murder of Vitthal by thrusting the water pipe in his mouth, as a result of which, he died of asphyxia due to aspiration of water. It is stated that the probable cause of the death of Vitthal, as per the postmortem report is asphyxia due to aspiration of water and since Sanjay had thrust the water pipe with gushing water in the mouth of Vitthal, he had died by asphyxia due to aspiration of water. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, especially when the guilt of Sanjay is clearly brought home to him by the evidence tendered by the prosecution, this court may not interfere with the judgment of the trial court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. To consider, whether the trial court was justified in not granting the benefit of the provisions of Section 84 of the Penal Code to the appellant and holding him guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code, it would be necessary to consider a few provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the evidence on record. It would be necessary to consider Section 84 of the Penal Code which is one of the General Exceptions. Section 84 of the Penal Code reads thus : 84. It would be necessary to consider Section 84 of the Penal Code which is one of the General Exceptions. Section 84 of the Penal Code reads thus : 84. Act of a person of unsound Mind – 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 the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” Section 84 of the Penal Code refers to a plea of insanity, as raised by the accused. The Penal Code does not define 'unsoundness of mind'. However, the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court from time to time have categorized the situations in which a person could not be said to be of sound mind. What is required under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is the unsoundness of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the crime and about the incapacity of the accused of knowing the nature of the act that he was doing. The burden of proving the existence of circumstances under Section 84 of the Penal Code is always upon the accused in view of the provisions of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus: 105 – Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions – When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions 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. 6. The said provision clearly lays down 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 Exceptions in the 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. The burden of proving the case of Sanjay that by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act that he had committed in the midnight between 16.10.2014 to 17.10.2014 would be on Sanjay. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 and relied on by the counsel for Sanjay that it would be first necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. It is observed that there is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court has laid down that the accused may rebut the presumption by placing reliance on 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. The Supreme Court has held that even if the accused is not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time when he committed the offence, if the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution raises 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, 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. It is well settled that a party may discharge the burden placed upon it either by tendering evidence or by relying upon the evidence tendered by the other side that would support it. In this background, it would be necessary to consider whether the appellant has discharged the burden of proving that by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him that had caused the death of Vitthal. Ramdas, the father of Vitthal and his brother Namdeo are the adjoining neighbours. They reside in their respective houses in the neighbourhood along with their families. Ramdas, the father of Vitthal and his brother Namdeo are the adjoining neighbours. They reside in their respective houses in the neighbourhood along with their families. Even as per the prosecution case, Kawadu, the elder brother of Sanjay had expired just a couple of weeks before the alleged incident took place on 16.10.2014 and 17.10.2014. It is deposed by Ramdas in his cross-examination that due to the death of Kawadu, the son of Kawadu was feeling haunted. He had admitted in his cross-examination that when a person feels that he possesses Godly or ghostly powers, he is known to be haunted. It is admitted by Ramdas in his cross-examination that Sanjay used to say from about 10 to 12 days before the alleged incident that Lord Hanuman had entered into his body. He has admitted that after saying that he had divine godly power, Sanjay used to dance and utter anything that was abnormal. It is admitted by Ramdas that after some time, Sanjay used to regain his senses and behave like a normal person. Ramdas admitted that on the day of the incident, Sanjay was again acting like a haunted person. Ramdas has admitted in his cross-examination that Sanjay shouted that God had ordered him to remove the ghost from the house of Ramdas and then he has started the motorpump and drenched all his family members with water. The evidence of Ramdas, both in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination reveals that after drenching everybody from the family of Ramdas with water, Sanjay had thrust the water pipe into the mouth of Vitthal and had sat on his chest with a view to remove the ghost from the body of Vitthal. It is the case of Ramdas that before committing the aforesaid acts, he had slapped the members of the family of the Ramdas. It is also admitted by Ramdas that when the police arrived, they had slapped hard on the face of Sanjay and by catching his collar they had to take him away. It is apparent from the evidence of Ramdas that Sanjay was behaving like a haunted person. It is apparent from the evidence of Ramdas, who is the only witness examined by the prosecution to prove the incident that before a few days of the date of incident and on the day of incident also, Sanjay was behaving like a haunted person. It is apparent from the evidence of Ramdas, who is the only witness examined by the prosecution to prove the incident that before a few days of the date of incident and on the day of incident also, Sanjay was behaving like a haunted person. Sanjay appears to have been telling one and all from a few days before the incident that he was a Godly person. Sanjay used to dance and shout and chant the name of Lord Hanuman. There is a clear admission by Ramdas that Sanjay used to behave in that fashion for sometime and after that he used to be relieved of the ghostly or divine power that he claimed to possess. The evidence of Ramdas would support the case of Sanjay that he was not in his senses at the relevant time when the incident occurred and that due to the reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of doing the act, he was not capable of knowing the nature of the same. It appears that the prosecution case is supported by the evidence of Ramdas that on the midnight between 16/10/2014 and 17/10/2014 Sanjay came to the house of Ramdas at 1 O'clock midnight, started shouting that he would remove the ghost from the house, poured a pot of water on his head, operated the motor pump of the well, asked everybody to sit on the baz (wooden cot with coir wires), started slapping everybody, sprinkled water on their body and drenched everybody with water and put the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal till Vitthal stopped breathing. It is deposed by Ramdas that Sanjay then ignited the incense stick and said that he would save Vitthal, he again sprinkled water over all the family members in the house of Ramdas and hit him with a stone on his chest both shoulders and head. It is apparent from the evidence of Ramdas and from the cause of death, as stated in the postmortem report i.e. asphyxia due to aspiration of water that Vitthal had died a homicidal death and Sanjay had caused the death of Vitthal by thrusting the water pipe in his mouth as a result of which he had died by asphyxia due to aspiration of water. It appears from the evidence that Sanjay had committed the said acts on the date of incident at midnight and it would be necessary to consider whether the benefit of the provisions of section 84 of the Penal Code could be given to Sanjay on the basis of the evidence on record. A plea of insanity was not raised by Sanjay, however in his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code he has stated that his mental condition was not proper and therefore he does not remember what transpired on the fateful day. For proving his insanity, the burden would lie on Sanjay to prove the same. Sanjay has examined Dr. Imran Ali as D.W.1. Dr. Imran Ali had stated that he had examined Sanjay as a patient during his visit to the prison. Dr. Imran Ali is a psychiatrist and he has deposed in his evidence that it is possible that when a brother of a person may die, there may be some adverse effect on his mind. Dr. Imran Ali has deposed that if a person says that he is possessed by God and that God is in his body then that may be a symptom of schizophrenia. He has stated that it is possible that such a person may attempt to execute the commands of God and that he may harm himself and others. He has stated that such a person may not know what he is talking and what he is doing. He has admitted in his cross-examination that it was true that in view of the complaints of Sanjay, he had narrated the symptoms of his mental illness. The evidence of Dr. Imran Ali would not be very relevant for deciding the question whether at the time of committing the crime Sanjay was incapable of knowing the nature of the act as he was not in a sound state of mind, as the crucial time for determining whether the accused was not in a sound state of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act would be the time when he had actually committed the act. The said position of law is well settled. The said position of law is well settled. For deciding whether at the relevant time, the accused was or was not in a position to understand the nature of the act that he was doing, it would be necessary to consider the conduct of the accused shortly before the commission of the crime, while committing the crime and immediately after the crime is committed. It is the prosecution case, as could be seen from the first information report and the evidence of Ramdas that from about 12 days before the commission of the crime Sanjay was behaving very differently and like a haunted person. Sanjay had lost his brother Kawdu and the son of Kawdu was also feeling haunted. Ramdas had admitted in his cross-examination that when a person feels that he is possessed of godly or ghostly powers, he is regarded as haunted. It is the case of Ramdas that Sanjay used to proclaim from about 12 days prior to the incident that he was possessed by Lord Hanuman, he used to dance and sing and after some time he used to behave like a normal person. It is stated that about 10 to 12 days before the incident, Sanjay used to worship God and call all the persons from the locality to his house and say that he was possessed by God. At the time of the incident also, the beaviour of Sanjay showed that he was not in a sound state of mind. It appears from the first information report and the evidence of Ramdas that Sanjay was not behaving like a sane person from about 12 days before the date of incident and at the time of the incident also he was not in a sound state of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he performed. In the cross-examination, Ramdas has clearly admitted that Sanjay did not flee from the spot even after Vitthal was motionless and stood near the compound wall and started threatening the villagers that they should not come close to him as he was possessed by God and that the villagers would die if they come near him as there was a ghost in him. It appears from the evidence of Ramdas that though the police arrived at the spot after about 20 minutes from the time of the occurrence, Sanjay did not try to flee from the spot and remained at the spot of the incident. It is apparent from the cross-examination of Ramdas that after the police came, the police had given two hard slaps to Sanjay as apparently he was not in his senses and then they took him away. From the evidence of the prosecution, i.e. the first information report and the evidence of Ramdas, it could be gathered that Sanjay was not in a sound state of mind at the time of the incident and he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he was doing. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1971 SC 778 (Ratan Lal v. State of M.P.) that a tendency of a person to set his own clothes on fire would prima facie be a proof of insanity. The conduct of Sanjay would show that Sanjay was not in a sound state of mind and incapable of knowing the nature of the act or else he would have fled from the spot after Vitthal became motionless and was dead. There is no evidence in regard to the preparation for the crime, there is no evidence whatsoever about the motive for the crime and there is also no evidence about the intention on the part of Sanjay to commit the crime. This is a case where the state of mind of Sanjay was such that it was something more than irrationality and his state of mind was such that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts. Though there was no evidence regarding family history pertaining to madness, it could be gathered that after the death of Kawdu, the brother of Sanjay, the son of Kawdu was also behaving like a haunted man. About Sanjay, it would be necessary to note that he was behaving abnormally and like a haunted man even before the death of Kawdu. Ramdas had admitted that Sanjay used to lose his senses for some time when he was said to be possessed by God or the ghost and after some time he used to regain his senses. About Sanjay, it would be necessary to note that he was behaving abnormally and like a haunted man even before the death of Kawdu. Ramdas had admitted that Sanjay used to lose his senses for some time when he was said to be possessed by God or the ghost and after some time he used to regain his senses. Though we find that Sanjay has not tendered enough evidence to prove his mental condition, Sanjay would be able to discharge the burden of proving his insanity on the basis of the evidence tendered by the prosecution. It is surprising that though there were several members in the family of Ramdas and Sanjay was slapping them, drenching them with water, thrusting the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal, etc., none of the family members prevented Sanjay from doing so. If the members of the family of Ramdas including Vitthal had together decided to resist and control the insane actions of Sanjay, they could have been in a position to easily do so and over power him. However, it appears that as they were conversant with such behaviour of Sanjay from about a fortnight before the date of the incident, they had witnessed the entire incident without taking any steps to prevent Sanjay from doing so. The inaction on the part of all the members from the family of Ramdas would further fortify the case of Sanjay that he was not in a sound state of mind at the relevant time and was incapable of understanding and knowing the nature of the acts that he had committed. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the crime was committed with requisite mens rea and that there was a motive for the crime, as even according to the prosecution case there were no fights, no quarrels and no enmity between the family of Ramdas and the family of Namdeo. Thus, the absence of motive, the absence of mens rea and the absence of preparation for the crime would be the additional factors that would go a long way in proving that Sanjay was not in a sound state of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. Thus, the absence of motive, the absence of mens rea and the absence of preparation for the crime would be the additional factors that would go a long way in proving that Sanjay was not in a sound state of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. If we consider these factors along with the acts actually committed by Sanjay at the time of the incident at 1 O'clock midnight, between 16/10/2014 and 17/10/2014, it could be said that due to unsoundness of mind at the time of incident, Sanjay was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he was doing. In the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record, it could be said that Sanjay was not in a sound state of mind at the time of incident and he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. The Medical Officer P.W.3, who is examined by the prosecution could have thrown some light on the mental condition of Sanjay at the time of the incident but unfortunately the said witness has opined only about the physical fitness of Sanjay and not about his mental fitness. Since we find from the evidence on record that Sanjay was not in a sound state of mind at the time of commission of the crime and that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he had committed, it would be necessary to grant the benefit of the provisions of section 84 of the Penal Code to Sanjay and hold that the act committed by Sanjay would not be an offence as at the time of committing the same due to his unsound state of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. While holding so, we have followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahyhabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujrat (supra). The judgment reported in 2017 CrLJ 1103 (Uttam Nandram Somwanshi v. State of Maharashtra) and relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would not help the State in submitting that the benefit of the provisions of section 84 of the Penal Code cannot be granted to Sanjay. The judgment reported in 2017 CrLJ 1103 (Uttam Nandram Somwanshi v. State of Maharashtra) and relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would not help the State in submitting that the benefit of the provisions of section 84 of the Penal Code cannot be granted to Sanjay. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no proof that the accused had suffered from schizophrenic attacks soon before and after the incident and that at the time of committing the act he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. In fact, in the said case the accused had acted upon a plan before committing the crime and immediately after committing the crime he had performed the pooja and prepared tea for himself. In the circumstances of that case, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the case of the accused in that case did not fall within the purview of the general exceptions available under section 84 of the Penal Code. The trial court however did not consider some of these aspects of the matter and has erroneously held that Sanjay had failed to prove that his case would fall within the general exception under section 84 of the Penal Code as he had not produced any evidence in support of his case in that regard. The trial court had lost sight of the fact that a party may prove its case either from the evidence tendered by the party or from the evidence tendered by the other party. In the instant case though we do not find much evidence from the side of Sanjay to support his plea of insanity, his case is surely supported by the prosecution case in the first information report and also from the evidence of the star witness Ramdas, who is the only witness and the relative of the deceased and the accused that was examined by the prosecution. The plea of insanity is also somewhat proved by the evidence of D.W.1 though solely on the basis of the said evidence, a finding in regard to the plea of insanity could not have been rendered in favour of Sanjay. The plea of insanity is also somewhat proved by the evidence of D.W.1 though solely on the basis of the said evidence, a finding in regard to the plea of insanity could not have been rendered in favour of Sanjay. After referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court in several paragraphs of the judgment of the trial court, the trial court has by giving a few reasons in paragraph-41 of the judgment, rejected the case of Sanjay by observing that the behaviour of Sanjay during the trial, prior to the trial and after his arrest would not point out that he did not understand the proceedings. We do not appreciate the observations made by the learned trial court in this regard. What is required for proving the plea of insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code is the state of mental fitness when the actual crime or act was committed and not the mental state of the accused during the trial. An accused may be of unsound mind at the time of trial but he may be of sound mind and may be capable of knowing the nature of the act at the time of committing the same. Here the provisions of section 84 would not apply. The trial court erroneously considered the conduct and behaviour of Sanjay during the trial to hold that the benefit of section 84 of the Penal Code could not be granted to him. We find that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record by bearing the provisions of section 84 of the Code in mind and has erroneously granted undue weightage to the behavior and conduct of Sanjay at the time of the trial. In the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record, it would be necessary to hold that the act committed by Sanjay on the fateful nigh between 16/10/2014 and 17/10/2014 is not an offence, in view of the provisions of section 84 of the Penal Code. 7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court, dated 12/04/2016 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2015 is hereby set aside. Appellant-Sanjay is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code. 7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court, dated 12/04/2016 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2015 is hereby set aside. Appellant-Sanjay is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code. Since appellant-Sanjay is in jail from 17/10/2014, he should be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime. Fine, if paid by accused-Sanjay, be refunded to him. Order accordingly. No costs.