State Of Rajasthan vs Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta

1. Respondent Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta was charged for committing an offence under Sections 302, 295 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 7th June, 2000. However, upon appeal, he came to be acquitted of all the offences by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan vide order dated 21st February, 2004 primarily on the ground that at the time of incident, he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 IPC and was directed to be detained in safe custody in an appropriate hospital or a place 2 of custody of non-criminal lunatics as would be provided to him by the State Government under the direct supervision of the Jail Authorities till the time he was cured of his mental illness and infirmity.

3. Before we proceed to dwell upon the merits of the case and the legal issues involved in the present appeal, a reference to the case of the prosecution would be necessary. According to the prosecution, on 10th March, 1999 at about 7.15 a.m., while Pujari Tulsi Das (now deceased) was in the Raghunathji's temple, the respondent abruptly hurled a stone on his head resulting into his instantaneous death. The respondent also damaged the idol and other properties of the temple. This all was unprovoked. The incident was witnessed by the villagers including PW-6 Santosh, PW-11 Narsingh Ram and PW-16, Smt. Tiku Devi.

4. PW-2, Ghan Shyam Das Daga reported the matter to the police immediately. Upon receipt of the information, the police registered a case under Section 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. Besides recording statements of number of witnesses, the Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan and the inquest memo. The body of the deceased was sent for 3 post-mortem which was performed by PW-20, Dr. C.P. Bhati, who prepared the post-mortem report Ext. P-37.

5. After investigation, the police filed the challan upon which, the respondent was committed to the appropriate Court of Sessions for trial. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 295 and 449 IPC, as already noticed. The respondent denied the charges leveled against him and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses to prove its case. The material piece of evidence appearing in the case of the prosecution against the respondent were put to him and his statement was recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.PC'). According to the respondent, his mental condition right from the year 1992-1993 was not good and occasionally he suffered from fits of insanity. He had undergone treatment for the same. He has stated that in the jail also, he was receiving the treatment. To put it simply, he claimed the defence of insanity under Section 84 IPC. The defence also examined DW-2, Dr. Vimal Kumar Razdan and DW-1, Bhanwar Lal, brother of the respondent who had produced records to show that the respondent was a person suffering from insanity of mind. The learned Trial Court rejected the plea of defence of insanity and convicted the 4 respondent.

7. The respondent preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction by the Trial Court which resulted in his acquittal vide order dated 21st February, 2004 with the afore-noticed directions to the State Government. Dissatisfied from the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal.

8. As is evident from the above-noted facts, it is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The plea of insanity raised by the respondent has been accepted by the High Court resulting in his acquittal.

15. In our considered view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, does not call for any interference. In the normal course of events, we are required not to interfere with a judgment of acquittal.

21. Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental 14 disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.

36. In view of our discussion above, we find no error in the judgment under appeal. Thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.