CR.A/5/8800 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 588 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= DINESH @ DINU DAHYABHAI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BS SUPEHIA for Appellant(s) : 1, Ms. Mita Panchal, APP, for the respondent ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 12/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/5/8800 2/2 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that in this appeal in the first instance when the incident was reported to the police it was told that the injuries have been caused by a mad man. Therefore, the only point urged in this appeal is that the accused should be granted benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. The ground of insanity is not accepted because at no point of time before the trial Court any application or move was made on behalf of the accused to get the accused medically examined and establish insanity of the accused. If the factum of insanity is not proved to be existing at the time when the incident was occurred then at this stage it would be difficult for us to determine whether at the time of incident the accused was insane or not. Therefore, this argument is not sustainable. If this argument is unsustainable, the other arguments are not accepted. We are constrained to hold that there is no force in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (BANKIM N. MEHTA, J) (pkn)