Isolated Acts of Extreme Violence

Atrup vs. State of Rajasthan

Filed under: Section 84, 300, 302 of Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Atrup
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2003 Cri LJ 4031
Court: In the Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Shiv Kumar Sharma & Fateh Chand Bansal

An appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing Atrup to imprisonment for life on charges of murder.

Facts

Atrup had hit Bahadur with an axe on his head and killed him. The autopsy also indicated that death had occurred as a result of head injury. After inflicting the blow, Atrup attempted suicide twice; at first, he jumped into a well and the second time he banged his head against the iron rods of his cell while he was in custody.

Atrup pleaded insanity but the Trial Court did not find the evidence sufficient to establish this. Atrup was therefore convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Atrup appealed against this judgment to the High Court.

Observations made by Court

The Court observed that the issue in this case was whether Atrup's behavior constituted insanity under the law. In this context the Court made the following observations -
  • Atrup had entered the place of the incident concealing the axe under his clothes and fled immediately after committing the crime.

  • After his arrest, he disclosed where he had hidden the axe and it was recovered from there.

  • He also stated that he was falsely implicated in the case because of some rivalry. All the questions put to him in this context were properly answered.
Held: Based on the above points, the Court concluded that Atrup's cognitive faculties were not impaired and that he was fully capable of understanding the nature of his act. It was also observed that the contention made on his behalf of inflicting injury with the intention to murder was absent was not applicable to this case as Atrup reached the place of the incident with an axe and inflicted a single heavy blow on Bahadur's head under the impact of which he died. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Hukum Chand vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3671
  • Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
  • Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab 1958, AIR 1958 SC 465

Top

Nivrutti Dhondiba Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra

Filed under: Sections 84 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Appellant: Nivrutti Dhondiba Shinde
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Citation: 1984(2) Bom 722
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judges: H.H. Kantharia and R.R. Jahagirdhar

Nivrutti Dhondiba Shinde appealed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Pune for convicting him of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Facts

Nivrutti was residing with his wife, two children and his mother at the time of the incident. He was employed in a private company and had to work in different shifts. On the day of the incident, he came back after a night shift at 8 am and told his wife, Alka, that he dreamt that their two month old son, Madhu, was a devil.

He added that if Madhu was not killed, he and Alka had to die. To this, Alka suggested that they should not kill the child but give him away to someone. However, Nivrutti was of the view that it would not be proper to hand over the devil to someone and the devil had to be killed.

He went on repeating the same thing the whole day. Sometime during the day, his mother intervened and told him not to think of killing the child and instead give the child to somebody for maintenance. He got angry with her and asked her to keep quiet. He cried and refused to have lunch.

However, he ate a lot of turmeric powder that day. Around 4-4.30 pm he locked the door, pushed Alka away and started beating the boy. All her attempts to protect the baby failed. He caught hold of the child by his legs and thrashed him on the pounding stone thrice. The child died immediately.

When his brother, Raghunath, opened the door, he came out and told Alka that she should not cry since the devil was destroyed. His mother went inside the house and saw the child dead. The police came and took him into custody. Alka told the police that her husband had killed the child because he was mentally retarded.

On arrest, the Sub-Inspector noticed that Nivrutti was not behaving like a normal person and was not eating any thing. He was sent for a medical examination and then a report was sent to the Magistrate suggesting sending him to a mental hospital.

During the trial, he stated that he did not remember anything that happened that day and also mentioned that he had gone insane and pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Against this order, he filed the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence of five witnesses, which indicated Nivrutti's behaviour around the time of the incident. The Court observed that all the evidence relating to the incident indicated that he was not of a sound mind and attention was drawn to the ferocity with which the child was killed. It was in the opinion of the Judge an act of an insane person.

The Court noted that the ferocity of the action was not proof of insanity but it was important in this case because the two-month-old child could not have provoked him to be so violent. Further, he did not run away nor resist his arrest proving that he did not have a guilty mind. Therefore, the Court held that he was entitled to benefit under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

Held: Nivrutti was acquitted and the Trial Court's decision was set aside. The jail authorities were asked to submit a report of his mental condition to the State government and they were asked to keep him in safe custody until it was proved that he was harmless to himself or to others.

Sections Referred:

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

Top