GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:
1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Sr. Counsel and Addl. P.P., Assam assisted by Ms. R. Das, appearing for the State.
2. This appeal has put to challenge the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2019, passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No.173/2018, by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The matter relates to the killing of the mother of the appellant by the appellant himself, by hitting her with a dao, which resulted in her death. The father of the appellant is the informant in the present case and in his FIR dated 31.07.2018, he has stated that the appellant had hit the informant's wife with a dao and thereafter tried to commit suicide by slitting his neck with the dao.
4. The appellant's counsel submits that there is no denial of the fact that the deceased had died due to the appellant (son) having killed his mother with a dao. However, the act committed by the appellant was not an offence, as the said act had been done due to unsoundness of mind on the part of the appellant. He submits that the appellant did not know the nature of the act that he had done on his mother, due to unsoundness of mind, which attracted the provision of Section 84 IPC.
5. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant had slit his throat with the same dao after having killed his mother with the same. The incident had occurred on 29.07.2018 and the FIR had been lodged by the appellant's father on 31.07.2018. There were 3 eyewitnesses out of 11 prosecution witnesses examined by the learned Trial Court, who had seen the appellant killing his mother. These eyewitnesses are PWs-1, 4 & 6. He submits that in respect of Section 84 of IPC, there is presumption of sanity on the part of an accused. In terms of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence any of the General Exceptions in the IPC such as Section 84 IPC, the Court is to presume the absence of such Exception. However, the said presumption has to be rebutted by the accused. He further submits that on a reading of the definition of Sections 3 & 4 of the Evidence Act pertaining to the words 'proved', 'disproved', 'not proved', 'may presume', 'shall presume' and 'conclusive proof', the standard of proof for rebutting a presumption under the General Exceptions provided in Chapter-IV of IPC is preponderance of probability. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 20 [AIR 1964 SC 1563]. He submits that the rebuttability of a presumption of the General Exceptions, as stated in the above judgment, provides that the accused is to satisfy the standard/test of a prudent man, which also includes within it's meaning the test of preponderance of probability. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 718 and in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup and Anr., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 764.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d0CXXHLG1dDeIC%2Bm32ow%2B5Kn%2FzkfhkyQvCqgg07bmQDA&caseno=CRL.A(J)/23/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010077642020&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
