Defence Pleas to be Consistent

Parmanada Mallick vs. The State

Filed under: Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 84, 302,307 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant: Paramananda Mallick
Respondent: The State
Citation: MANU/OR/0016/2002
Court: In the Court of Orissa
Judges: P.C.Nayak and P.K.Patra

Paramananda was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge of Jajpur for committing murder and attempting to murder. This appeal was filed against this order.

Facts

At 5-30 in the morning, Parmananda Mallick suddenly attacked Pitambar Mallick and severed his head with a 'Katari'. Pitambar's wife reported the incident to his younger brother who upon opening the door to the room found Paramananda chasing Pitambar's wife with a blood stained 'katari'. He managed to shut Parmananda outside the room.

Later, when they opened the door, Parmananda who was standing outside the door attacked them. When Pitamber's brother tried to open the door a second time, he saw Parmananda hitting Kailash Mallick, his brother-in-law with the same katari, and he immediately raised an alarm.

At this, Parmananda attacked him on his shoulder. Hearing the noise, two neighbours, Dinabandhu Mallick and Tikam Mallick came to the spot and caught Parmananda who was trying to run away. It appeared that there was a long standing grudge that was the reason for the murders.

At the trial, Parmananda pleaded not guilty. The Sessions Judge based his order on the medical report and the evidence given by the eye witnesses, found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Parmananda appealed to the High Court.

Arguments on behalf of Paramananda Mallick On behalf of Parmananda it was argued that the order by the Trial Court was taken without considering all the evidence and that he should have been given benefit under Section 84 of IPC since he committed the acts due to unsoundness of mind and was not capable of knowing the nature of the acts.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that it is a well settled principle that the plea of insanity cannot be entertained if it was neither raised at the Trial Court nor evident from the record and when the plea of insanity has not been established, the accused cannot be given benefit under Section 84 of the Code.

In the present case, the Court noted that Parmananda had not raised the plea of insanity during the Trial and further it was not clear from the records either. Further, it was held that the evidence showed no doubt with regard to the soundness of his mind.

All the evidence showed that Parmananda had not acted as an insane person and had acted as a sane man with some motive. Therefore, the Court held that he was not entitled to benefit under Section 84 and upheld the judgment of the Sessions Court.

Held: The appeal dismissed

Sections Referred: