All Charges to be Substantiated

Biren Chawra vs. State of Assam

Filed under: Section 84 of Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Biren Chawra
Respondent: State of Assam
Citation: (2003) 3 GLR 283
Court: In the High Court of Gauhati
Judges: PG Agarwal and IA Ansari

An appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh convicting and sentencing Biren Chawra to imprisonment for life for murdering his brother.

Facts

Biren Chawra had invited his brother home and upon arrival, Biren attacked him with a pruning knife. He was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The autopsy indicated that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries caused by a sharp and heavy weapon.

Biren's wife as well as his sister-in-law (the deceased's wife) was eyewitnesses. After the event, Biren confessed to the crime before a neighbour, Madhab Chawra. The accused, Biren had taken the plea of insanity before the Trial Court where it was rejected.

He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The present appeal was made to the High Court against this judgment.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the evidence clearly indicated that Biren was involved in the act. With respect to the plea of insanity, the Court noted the following points -
  • Biren's wife, his sister-in-law as well as two of his neighbors stated in their evidence that Biren had episodes of insanity as a result of which he had lost his job. They also stated that he was not in his senses at the time of the incident.

  • Biren was in good terms with his dead brother and there was no enmity between them. Thus, a motive for the act could not be established.

With regard to the extra judicial confession and report of the Jail doctor that Biren was of sound mental health, the Court pointed out that Biren was a laborer employed in a tea garden and had lost his job on account of his mental illness; thereafter he had remained untreated and hence it was not reasonable to expect medical evidence regarding his mental health in the past.

Held: Considering these points, the Court accepted the plea of insanity, directing that Biren be released from judicial custody.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Ratanlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 778
  • Sher Ali Wali Md. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 216

Top

Kamalesh Kumar Tewari vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Filed under: Section 84, 302 and 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant: Kamalesh Kumar Tewari
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 1998 (3) ALD 582
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
Judges: Motilal B Naik and V Bhaskara Rao

An appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court convicting Kamalesh Kumar Tewari and sentencing him to imprisonment for life on charges of murder.

Facts

Both the accused, Kamalesh Kumar Tewari and the deceased, Thota Maruthi were residents of Nizamabad town. A close relative of the Thota Maruthi saw Kamalesh and Thota fighting with one another near the gate of a theatre.

They were hurling abuses at each other after which Kamalesh stabbed Thota Maruthi with a knife on the left side of his chest, his left shoulder and left thigh as a result of which Thota Maruthi collapsed. Kamalesh then tried to run away from the scene but was chased and detained by some other people present there.

A complaint was lodged and an autopsy was carried out. The report indicated that the cause of death was shock and internal hemorrhage due to stab injuries. Kamalesh pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court however, found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He appealed against this judgment to the High Court pleading insanity.

Arguments made on behalf of Kamalesh:

The following arguments were made on behalf of Kamalesh, pleading exemptions under two different provisions-
  • He had been suffering from schizophrenia for the past five years and his mental condition should have been considered before passing the sentence.

  • The incident in question had taken place due to sudden provocation and therefore not punishable for murder.

  • It was also contended that the main witness was a close relative of Thota Maruthi and had his own reasons to implicate Kamalesh; therefore, his evidence ought not to be believed.

  • The main witness was the proprietor of the theatre where the incident took place. Therefore the other witnesses, who were employees of that theatre, supported his version.

  • Kamalesh had no intention to cause injury that would result in death and therefore the Court should have passed a lesser sentence.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that in this case, the plea of insanity had not been made in the Trial Court. Moreover there existed no medical evidence to corroborate the claim; therefore the Court rejected the plea.

With regard to the argument made on behalf of Kamalesh that the witnesses of the prosecution were interested parties, the Court observed that while it was true that they were the employees of the theatre and its proprietor, no discrepancies were found in their testimonies; therefore this contention was not found to hold. The argument about sudden provocation was also rejected.

Considering all the evidence the Court concluded that the Trial Court was justified in sentencing Kamalesh to imprisonment for life. They imposed a further fine of Rs. 500 or one month rigorous imprisonment in default.

It was argued on behalf of Kamalesh that he was only 20 years of age and therefore should be sent to Borstal School; the Court did not entertain this claim because the issue had not been taken up in the Trial Court nor was his age subjected to scrutiny.

Besides the Court indicated that by the end of the Trial he would have crossed 21 years and thus the plea was not available to Kamalesh.

Held: The appeal was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 84, 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Top

Vishnu Govarya Yadhav vs. the State of Maharashtra

Filed under: Section 84, 229, 300, 302 & 304 of the India Penal Code
Appellant: Vishnu Govarya Yadhav
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 1998 (5) Bom CR 49
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judge: Vishnu Sahai

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting Vishnu Govarya Yadhav and sentencing him to under go life imprisonment for murdering Pandurang.

Facts

About two and a half months prior to the incident, Vishnu Goverya Yadhav had quarreled with Pandurang in connection with a business of selling fish and Yadhav had threatened Pandurang by saying that he would see how long Pandurang would carry on the business.

On the day of the incident, Yadhav inflicted a knife blow to Pandurang’s chest as a result of which Pandurang died. Three eyewitnesses to the incident gave their evidence accordingly.

Before the trial judge, Yadhav pleaded that on account of insanity he was incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of his act and sought the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

However, the Trial Court rejected the plea, and convicted Yadhav under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Observations of the Court

The High Court held that the trial judge had been fully justified in disregarding the plea of insanity raised by Yadhav. However, it was felt that in the light of the facts of the case and several decisions of the Supreme Court given on previous occasions, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could not be sustained.

Instead the High Court held that Yadhav ought to be convicted under section 304 IPC and his sentence should be reduced to 7 years.

Held: The appeal was allowed. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were set aside and Yadhav was instead convicted under section 304 IPC.

Sections Referred:

Top