TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Appeal, Rejects Insanity Plea</h1> <h3>Hari Singh Gond Versus State of M.P.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions in dismissing the appeal challenging the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal ... - Issues involved: Appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, challenge to rejection of plea under Section 84 IPC for unsoundness of mind.Background: The case involved the conviction of the appellant for offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, related to the death of the maternal grandfather-in-law of the accused. The prosecution's case detailed the events leading to the death, including the accused's alleged violent behavior towards witnesses and the deceased, resulting in the death by burning of the grandfather-in-law.Plea under Section 84 IPC: The appellant argued that the unusual behavior exhibited by the accused, as witnessed by PW2 and PW4, should have led to the application of Section 84 IPC for unsoundness of mind. The prosecution contended that Section 84 was not applicable in this case, a stance upheld by the High Court.Legal Test of Responsibility: Section 84 of IPC provides the legal test for cases of alleged unsoundness of mind, equating 'unsoundness of mind' to insanity. The burden of proving insanity rests on the accused, with a distinction made between legal and medical insanity. The section outlines criteria for exoneration based on the accused's capability to understand the nature of the act and its legality at the time of committing the offense.Types of Unsoundness of Mind: The judgment elaborated on four categories of individuals considered non compos mentis, including idiots, those made non compos by illness, lunatics, and individuals under the influence of alcohol. It emphasized that the intent and act must concur for an offense, except in cases of insane persons where culpability is not established due to lack of free will.Application of Section 84 IPC: The section provides exemption from liability if the accused, due to a defect of reason from a mental disorder, was unaware of the nature or wrongfulness of the act at the time of committing it. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving the accused's mental condition at the material time of the offense and the relevance of conduct before and after the event.Decision: The trial Court and the High Court correctly determined that Section 84 IPC did not apply in this case, dismissing the appeal against conviction. The judgment did not delve into the application of Section 339 of Cr.P.C concerning the appellant's custody since 1996.Conclusion: The appeal challenging the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, along with the plea for unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
