The High Court of Chhattisgarh, while acquitting a man accused of murdering his father and grandmother, has held that to claim the benefit of Section 22 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which is equivalent to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the crucial consideration is the accused’s behaviour preceding, during, and following the crime. The court set aside the conviction by the Sessions Court, Dhamtari, ruling that a reasonable doubt had been raised about the appellant’s insanity at the time of the incident.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru allowed the criminal appeal filed by Mahesh Kumar Verma, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for double murder. The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in light of substantial evidence pointing towards his unsoundness of mind.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on April 13, 2021. The appellant’s mother, Smt. Rekha Verma (PW2), filed a police report stating that after the family had dinner and went to sleep, her son, Mahesh Kumar Verma, who was mentally unstable and locked in his room for safety, called out for water around 11:00 PM. His father, the deceased Pannalal Verma, opened the door.
According to the report, the appellant then became aggressive, proclaiming, “I am Hanuman ji, Bajrang Bali, Durga,” and pushed his mother. He began fighting with his father (Pannalal Verma) and grandmother (Triveni Verma). The complainant ran to call the neighbours for help. Upon her return, she found the house door locked from the inside. When the door was finally opened, Pannalal Verma and Triveni Verma were found dead in a pool of blood.
Based on this report, a crime was registered, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment on two counts for murder.
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sinha argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that the appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of the incident. He contended that the prosecution’s failure to investigate the appellant’s mental state created a serious infirmity in their case. He pointed to the testimony of several witnesses, including the appellant’s mother (PW2) and cousin (PW1), who stated that the appellant had suffered a head injury after a fall and was undergoing psychiatric treatment in Raipur under a Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla. The defence argued that convicting the appellant without ascertaining his mental state at the time of the offence violated legal principles.
Representing the State, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shashank Thakur supported the trial court’s judgment. He submitted that the court had correctly concluded, after examining medical records and other material, that the appellant’s case did not fall within the exception of legal insanity provided under Section 84 of the IPC.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, after hearing both parties and examining the record, framed the central question for consideration: “whether the appellant, at the time of the incident, was of unsound mind and thereby entitled to benefit under Section 22 of the BNS (equivalent to Section 84 IPC)?”
The Court noted that the appellant’s mother, in the initial Merg Intimation itself, had stated that her son was a “mental patient” whose treatment was ongoing. Her court testimony confirmed that the appellant had been receiving psychiatric treatment for about 12 years. The Investigating Officer (PW15) admitted during cross-examination that he did not seize any documents related to the appellant’s psychiatric treatment nor did he obtain a report from the treating doctor to establish the appellant’s mental state on the date of the incident.
The judgment highlighted the appellant’s behaviour, noting that he was kept locked in a room due to fear of violent behaviour and that on the night of the incident, he was chanting, “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga.” The Court also observed the absence of any motive for the appellant to kill his own father and grandmother, who were actively involved in his treatment.
The Bench cited several Supreme Court judgments to elaborate on the law of insanity. It referred to Bapu @ Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which held:
“The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.”
The Court also relied on Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, which established that the burden of proof on the accused for a plea of insanity is not as high as that on the prosecution and is based on a preponderance of probabilities.
The judgment emphasized the distinction between ‘medical insanity’ and ‘legal insanity’, citing Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand:
“In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity… The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity.”
The High Court concluded that the consistent testimony about the appellant’s mental condition, the lack of motive, the prosecution’s failure to properly investigate the insanity plea, and the appellant’s erratic behaviour during the incident collectively created a “strong presumption of legal insanity.”
The Court stated, “The provisions of 22 of the BNS (Section 84 IPC) will come to the rescue of the appellant, as he was not knowing that what he was doing was wrong or the same is contrary to law. In order to ascertain the same, the imperative circumstances and the behavior preceding, attending and following the crime are the main consideration.”
The Decision
Finding that a reasonable doubt was cast on the appellant’s sanity, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment read, “we are of the view that this is a case of more than a reasonable doubt about the insanity or unsoundness of mind of the appellant and as such the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”
The conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, were set aside, and Mahesh Kumar Verma was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed his immediate release from jail.
