Devidas Loka Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. In   the   morning   of   26.09.2006,   the   appellant   suddenly picked up a sickle from the shop floor of the iron smith and attempted to assault Gulab Pawar (P.W.11), but which injured Santosh   Jadhav   (P.W.5)   on   the   jaw   and   cheek   and   gave   a further   blow   on   his   shoulder.     The   same   day,   he   later Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2018.07.02 assaulted   Ulhas   Rathor   (P.W.3)   on   his   back   and   neck   and 16:03:57 IST Reason: rained blows on the back and stomach of the deceased Harish 1 Chandra   Chauhan,   when   the   latter   tried   to   intervene.     The appellant then tried to flee, throwing the sickle enroute, when he was apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police.

3. The   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Akola   rejected   the defence   plea   for   unsoundness   of   mind,   citing   insufficient evidence   relying   on   the   evidence   of   Dr.   Sagar   Srikant Chiddalwar (C.W.1) that the appellant was not mentally sick and fit to face trial.  The subsequent conduct of the appellant while in custody, his demeanour during the trial, were further relied  upon to  conclude that the appellant was conscious of his   wrongful   acts   which   were   deliberate   in   nature,   evident from the repeated assaults and running away from the place of occurrence after throwing the sickle.  The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

14. We   shall   now   consider   the   sufficiency   of   other   medical and   defence   evidence   to   examine   if   a   reasonable   doubt   is created with regard to the mental state of the appellant at the time   of   commission   of   the   assault   on   a   preponderance   of probability, coupled with the complete lack of consideration of the evidence of P.W.14.   Merely because an injured witness, 10 who may legitimately be classified as an interested witness for obvious reasons,  may have stated that the appellant was not of   unsound   mind,   cannot   absolve   the   primary   duty   of   the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt explaining why the plea for unsoundness of mind taken by the accused was untenable.

…..At   present   he   is   under   control   with   antipsychotic drugs   and   is   still   maintained   on   drugs.     He   may   be referred   to   Mental   Hospital,   Nagpur   for   further investigations   and   expert   opinion,   for   further proceedings.”

17.  C.W.1 was also examined by the defence as D.W.3 and deposed that he had no materials with regard to the previous history of the appellant, that none of his relatives were present at the time of such examination, and he could not therefore say anything regarding any pre­existing mental disorder of the appellant.

21. We   are   therefore   of   the   considered   opinion,   that   the appellant has been able to create sufficient doubt in our mind that he is entitled to the benefit of the exception under section 84   I.P.C.   because   of   the   preponderance   of   his   medical 17 condition   at   the   time   of   occurrence,   as   revealed   from   the materials and evidence on record.  The prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.  The appeal is allowed.  He is directed to be released from custody unless wanted in any other case.