TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Appeal Dismissed: Conviction and Life Sentence Upheld; Insanity Defense Under Section 84 IPC Rejected by Supreme Court.</h1> <h3>Surendera Mishra Versus State of Jharkhand</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction u/s 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Plea of unsoundness of mind u/s 84 IPC.Summary:1. Conviction u/s 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act:The sole Appellant was tried and found guilty by the trial court for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC, with no separate sentence for the Arms Act violation. The High Court upheld this conviction and sentence, leading the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.2. Plea of Unsoundness of Mind u/s 84 IPC:The Appellant's defense was based on the claim of unsoundness of mind, arguing that his actions fell within the general exception u/s 84 IPC. The trial court and the High Court both rejected this plea. The High Court noted that the evidence did not support the claim of mental instability at the time of the incident.The Appellant's counsel cited previous Supreme Court judgments, including *State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh* and *Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra*, to support the plea of insanity. However, the Supreme Court found these cases distinguishable, as the Appellant in the current case did not demonstrate the same level of mental illness at the time of the crime.The Supreme Court emphasized that for the defense of unsoundness of mind u/s 84 IPC, it must be proven that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The Court noted that the Appellant's behavior, such as threatening the driver and attempting to conceal the weapon, indicated awareness of the wrongful nature of his actions.The Court concluded that the Appellant's mental instability did not meet the threshold for legal insanity required u/s 84 IPC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
TaxTMI 
