In a judgment delivered on 29 May 2025, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife and son, after finding that he was suffering from impaired mental condition at the time of the offence. The Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh allowed the appeal filed by Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari, holding that the case fell within the ambit of the general exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
Background
The appeal arose from the judgment dated 24 December 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Bahraich, in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2002. The appellant, Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Case Crime No. 216 of 2002, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹20,000. In default of payment, an additional sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment was imposed.
According to the FIR lodged by the appellant’s father, Prahlad Kumar Tewari, the appellant had been mentally ill for over a year. It was alleged that during the intervening night of 31 August and 1 September 2002, at about 2:00 a.m., he murdered his wife and son, Durgesh, using a sharp-edged weapon. The FIR was registered under Section 304 IPC and later charges were framed under Section 302 IPC.
Arguments
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been under neurological and psychiatric treatment long before the incident and was of unsound mind. Medical prescriptions from February 2002 from Jamuna Neuro Psychiatric Centre were produced before the trial court. The defense argued that the appellant had no mens rea and was entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC.
It was further argued that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence and that the trial court failed to consider the evidence related to the appellant’s mental illness, including his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, supported the conviction and submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that the weapon was recovered on the appellant’s pointing and that he failed to offer any plausible explanation as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that the incident occurred in the appellant’s home where he resided with his wife and children. The dead bodies were recovered from his residence. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the informant (P.W.-1), the appellant’s elder son (P.W.-3), the medical officer (P.W.-7), and others.
The Court noted that multiple witnesses, including P.W.-1, P.W.-2, and P.W.-4, supported the fact that the appellant was mentally ill. The medical records indicated he had shown symptoms such as delusional speech and hallucinations. The Court found that these prescriptions were on record well before the date of the incident and could not be disregarded.
While analyzing the mental state of the appellant, the Court referred to Section 84 IPC and judgments including Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 955), Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, and James Martin v. State of Kerala, emphasizing that unsoundness of mind at the time of the act can relieve an accused of criminal liability.
The Court also found that the trial court failed to properly consider the appellant’s Section 313 CrPC statement and the medical evidence of mental illness. The questions posed during examination were found to be mechanical, and the trial court did not evaluate the explanation provided by the accused.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the evidence on record established that the appellant was suffering from an impaired mental condition at the time of the incident and was therefore entitled to the benefit of the general exception under Section 84 IPC. It held:
“The overall examination of the evidences including the statements of the prosecution witnesses, is enough to establish that the appellant was suffering with certain impaired mental condition and thus, the instant matter obviously, falls in a category of general exception.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Case Title: Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2007
