The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

link to top
LAWS(SC) 1964 3 32
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Coram :- RAGHUBAR DAYAL, K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJJ.
Decided on 1964 March 19
Criminal No.58 of 1962
DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI THAKKAR
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT

Advocates:
R. H. DHEBAR, B. R. G. K. ACHAR, B. K. BANERJEE, D. R. PREM

[-] Referred Judgments (1)

K M NANAVATI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [AIR 1962 SC 605] [RELIED ON]

[-] Cited At (267)

BHIKARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1963-2-1][EXPLAINED]

RATAN LAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1970-12-7][APPLIED]
SHERALLI WALI MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1972-8-
58][RELIED UPON]
OYAMI AYATU VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1973-8-8][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM SWARUP [LAWS(SC)-1974-5-14][REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR DEY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1976-8-16][RELIED ON]
YOGENDRA MORARJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1979-12-8][RELIED ON]
VIJAYEESINGH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[LAWS(SC)-1990-4-7][RELIED ON]
RAVJI ALIAS RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-1995-12-
14][REFERRED TO]
PERIASAMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-1996-9-104][RELIED ON]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. GIAN CHAND [LAWS(SC)-2001-5-58][REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. LALU PRASAD alias LALU PRASAD YADAV [LAWS(SC)-2001-9-
56][REFERRED]
T N LAKSHMAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-134][REFERRED]
SHIRIKANT ANANDRAO BHASALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2002-9-
70][REFERRED]
M S MADHUSOODHANAN VS. KERALA KAUMUDI PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-

Page 1 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

120][REFERRED]
BAPU ALIAS GAJRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-6-
13][REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH GOND VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-111][REFERRED TO]
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2008-10-
22][REFERRED TO]
ELAVARASAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-
94][REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-62][REFERRED
TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1967-3-6][REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN VS. ZILEY SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1981-7-18][REFERRED]
MOHD SADIQ VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-143][REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-279][REFERRED TO]
PREMWATI VS. DDA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-104][REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL ALIAS RANJAN MOHAN BHATNAGAR VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI
[LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-300][REFERRED TO]
PARSHADI LAL VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-
203][REFERRED TO]
PARAMJEET SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-55][REFERRED TO]
RAJU JAMADAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-323][REFERRED TO]
RAJ BALLABH VS. STATE (GNCT) DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-361][REFERRED TO]
RAJU JAMADAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-598][REFERRED TO]
SUNITA SHARMA VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-185][REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL @SURESH @ SODA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-399][REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER @ LALU & ANR. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-53][REFERRED TO]
JETHALAL NANALAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1967-5-4][REFERRED TO]
BARKU KRISHNA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1971-3-3][REFERRED]
RAMILABEN WIFE OF MANILAL GANESHBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT
[LAWS(GJH)-1990-2-5][REFERRED]
KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1995-9-
48][REFERRED]
VISHRAMBHAI SOMABHAI VASAVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1996-2-
10][REFERRED TO]
RAVAL MOHANBAI LAXMANBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1998-2-
15][RELIED ON]
AAMAD ALIAS KALU ABDULBHAI MAJOTHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1998-
11-59][RELIED ON]
BOLABHAI HIRABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-6-54][REFFERED TO]
RAMILABEN HASMUKHBHAI KRISTI WD O HASMUKHBHAI ASHABHAI VS. STATE OF
GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-9-68][REFERRED]
SHUBH LAXMI ENTERPRISES A PROPRIETOR FIRM VS. VIPULBHAI S LASKARI
[LAWS(GJH)-2004-2-10][REFERRED TO]
AMRISH MAHENDRA TRIVEDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-
6][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAJENDRAKUMAR GOKALDAS VAJA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-1-
92][REFERRED TO]
SHYAMNARAYANSINGH RAMPALATSINGH KHERA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT
[LAWS(GJH)-2011-3-242][REFERRED TO]
Page 2 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

VITTHALBHAI BHUPATBHAI TADVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-8-

197][REFERRED TO]
PUSHPENDRASINH @ PARESH VAGHELA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-
2-265][REFERRED TO]
VINODBHAI LAXMANBHAI KHUMAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-
18][REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI JAGMALBHAI HARIJAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-
2014-4-142][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAHENDRASINH HAMIRSINH SOLANKI AND ORS
[LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-347][REFERRED]
NARAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1989-10-5][REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR TEWARI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1992-3-22][REFERRED TO]
JAI PAL SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-415][REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-4][REFERRED TO]
INDRA BAHADUR SINGH AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-
298][REFERRED TO]
VIDHA SHANKER VS. RAM NATH GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-172][REFERRED TO]
NATTHU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-37][REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-223][REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. THUMMALA
JANARDHANA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1998-8-74][REFERRED TO]
KATKURI RAVINDER REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-29][REFERRED
TO]
ACHANTA RAMA KRISHNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIFE
INSURANCE [LAWS(APH)-2006-7-154][REFERRED]
BHURA KHARIA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-1-80][REFERRED TO]
A P CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2009-2-
90][REFERRED TO]
BOLLARAPU GANGARAM VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-33][REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR CH BISWAS VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1986-9-37][RELIED ON]
DULAL NAYEK VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1986-12-5][REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1991-7-31][REFERRED
TO]
SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-
1992-6-17][REFERRED TO]
KESHAB MONDAL VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2000-7-57][REFERRED]
KURMA RAO VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2002-1-57][REFERRED
TO]
ASHIS DEY BABLU DEY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(CAL)-2003-9-
51][REFERRED TO]
KAMALA BHUNIYA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-1-28][REFERRED
TO]
SUJIT MANNA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-3-68][REFERRED TO]
PULAK BANIK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-6-47][REFERRED TO]
MANAS ALIAS DHURJOTI SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-6-
107][REFERRED TO]
DILIP BANERJEE ALIAS HATKATA DILIP VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-
2011-8-150][REFERRED TO]
SUKU VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-60][REFERRED TO]
Page 3 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

KUSNU MURARI VS. STATE [LAWS(GAU)-1971-2-1][REFERRED TO]

KUMAR SUNILAL DEB VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1981-4-17][REFERRED
TO]
LOHIT CHANDRA DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1986-1-3][REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SONOWAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1986-8-6][REFERRED TO]
BINODIK ORANG VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1994-11-13][REFERRED TO]
AHMED ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1998-3-15][REFERRED TO]
DHANESWAR PRADHANI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2002-10-24][REFERRED
TO]
PULU MURA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-5-38][REFERRED TO]
ATUL BORA VS. AKAN BORA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-12-37][REFERRED TO]
JATIN TALUKDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2008-9-59][REFERRED TO]
CHIRON GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2009-4-30][REFERRED TO]
DIGANTA DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-2-13][REFERRED TO]
DEBESWAR BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-4-60][REFERRED TO]
RASHI CHAND DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-1-
23][REFERRED TO]
GHANA GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-6-39][REFERRED TO]
RAMESH MAJHI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-12-16][REFERRED TO]
BIPUL MODI ALIAS MUDI VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-2016-9-
50][REFERRED]
BHAGMAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1994-6-2][REFERRED TO ]
BAL BAHADUR VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2000-12-2][REFERRED TO]
HARDAYAL SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2003-7-34][REFERRED TO]
BIHARILAL VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2004-12-7][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BHILHAM RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2010-9-
300][REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-10-
8][REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-
40][REFERRED TO]
JEEVAN RANA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-
48][REFERRED TO]
SURENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-
100][REFERRED TO]
VINOD ALIAS DINESH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-
61][REFERRED TO]
TARSEEM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-1976-12-2][REFERRED TO]
ABDULLAH BHAT VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-1998-9-17][REFERRED TO]
State of Jharkhand VS. Madras Nayak [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-1-62][REFERRED TO]
Bisheshwar Ganjhu VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-2-67][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. LAKHAN RAI [LAWS(JHAR)-2006-10-1][REFERRED TO]
S SUNIL SANDEEP VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1993-3-12][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. N SOMASEKHAR [LAWS(KAR)-1993-4-10][REFERRED TO]
SANNATAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-23][REFERRED TO]
REHANA BEGUM VS. MIRZA M SHAIULLA BAIG [LAWS(KAR)-2005-6-47][REFERRED TO]
MADUSUDAN ALIAS MADUSUDAN RAJE URS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-
2010-6-38][REFERRED TO]
Madusudan @ Madusudan Raje Urs S/o Late Raghava Raje Urs VS. State of Karnataka
Page 4 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

represented by Public Prosecutor [LAWS(KAR)-2010-6-107][REFERRED TO]

NARAYANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1964-1-20][REFERRED TO]
AMMAD KOYA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1966-6-2][REFERRED TO]
GOPALAN NAMBIAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1966-1-35][REFERRED TO]
V.S. IYER VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1966-9-31][REFERRED TO]
MANI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1969-6-5][REFERRED TO]
KUTTAN GOPALAN VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-1970-11-33][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. RAVEENDRAN [LAWS(KER)-1977-11-40][REFERRED TO]
PUTHUPARAMBIL MUHAMMED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1985-6-
32][REFERRED TO]
KUTTAPPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1985-11-31][REFERRED TO]
PARAPUZHA THAMBAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1989-1-7][REFERRED TO]
SANKARAN VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-1993-9-2][RELIED ON]
MARIAMMA SUNNY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1993-12-34][REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-8-31][REFERRED TO]
ALIKUTTY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2006-10-58][REFERRED TO]
WESTFORT HI-TECH HOSPITAL LTD VS. V S KRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2006-11-
44][REFERRED TO]
N RAMRAJ VS. MADHU [LAWS(KER)-2008-3-38][REFERRED TO]
SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-8-515][REFERRED TO]
PALLIYALIL SIDIQUE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-4-134][REFERRED TO]
SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-8-130][REFERRED TO]
ABILASH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-186][REFERRED TO]
IN RE: THANGAVELU ASARI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1970-11-15][REFERRED TO]
IN RE: NAVIER MAROLLE VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1970-6-12][REFERRED TO]
IN RE: MARIMUTHU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1971-11-39][REFERRED TO]
IN RE: PALANIAPPAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1972-4-59][REFERRED TO]
MURTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1987-1-47][REFERRED TO]
SIVAGNANAM VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUDDALORE N.T. POLICE
STATION [LAWS(MAD)-1996-12-62][REFERRED TO]
MALLIGA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1997-10-1][REFERRED TO]
S MURUGESAN VS. S PETHAPERUMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1998-10-81][REFERRED TO]
GOVINDARAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-221][REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. M GOPALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-280][REFERRED TO]
RAMESH ALIAS RAMESH BABU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-318][REFERRED TO]
S.BHASKARAN VS. R.LOGANATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-12-28][REFERRED TO]
K. NATARAJAN VS. THANGAIAH [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-172][REFERRED TO]
A. STEEPEN VS. THE STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-131][REFERRED TO]
VELAN @ VELARASAN VS. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MARANDAHALLI CIRCLE, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. 93 OF 2010)
[LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-287][REFERRED TO]
GANESH SHRAWAN CHAUDHARI VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-1969-2-19][REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. EMERCIANO LEMOS [LAWS(BOM)-1969-3-22][REFERRED]
BABU NATHU GOND VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1975-7-
55][REFERRED TO]
NAGO ATMARAMJI KOHALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1976-12-
28][REFERRED TO]
BALU GANPAT KOSHIRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1983-4-
28][REFERRED TO]
Page 5 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

NIVRUTTI ALIAS LIMBA DHONDIBA SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

[LAWS(BOM)-1984-8-33][REFERRED TO]
GANESH S O GYANBARAO SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1986-
3-59][REFERRED TO]
ALEX MARTIN FERNANDES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1988-7-
76][REFERRED TO]
TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINGARDI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1990-7-
14][REFERRED TO]
MAHADEV SONU PARDHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-6-
25][REFERRED TO]
NATHU BAPU MHASKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-11-
41][REFERRED TO]
GOVIND RAMCHANDRA JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-7-
17][REFERRED TO]
NANA S O BHIMA BHUJANG VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-7-
64][REFERRED TO]
GULAB MANIK SUEWASE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-7-
85][REFERRED TO]
MOTIRAM MAROTI DHULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-7-
102][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. GOVINDSINGH THAKUR SURAJ SINGH THAKUR
[LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-74][REFERRED TO]
SURESH VITHAL BALLAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-11-
73][REFERRED TO]
MANIK VITHALRAO SURYAWANSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-
3-26][REFERRED TO]
SYAD YOUSUF S O SYED LAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-
19][REFERRED TO]
REVATINATH S O NARAYAN BILLEWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-
2004-9-169][REFERRED TO]
PRADHAN S O MURLIDHAR POTDAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-
2004-10-37][REFERRED TO]
Madhukar Ganpat Nigade VS. State of Maharashtra [LAWS(BOM)-2005-11-44][REFERRED
TO]
VITTHAL KISAN DODKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-
3][REFERRED TO]
BABASAHEB THOMBRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-
36][REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA YESHWANT KADAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-
73][REFERRED TO]
VITHAL ABASAHEB CHAVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-
77][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. UTTAM NANDRAM SOMWANSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-
122][REFERRED TO]
NAYAN S/O KESHAVJI NAGADA VS. BHARAT S/O KESHAVJI NAGADA [LAWS(BOM)-
2008-8-279][RELIED ON]
LEENA BALKRISHNA NAIR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-
80][REFERRED TO]
GELSING PIDA PAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-
Page 6 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

128][REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-21][REFERRED TO]
SANJAY MADHUKAR SATAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-
240][REFERRED TO 2.]
RAVINDRA GOVIND GAWAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-
265][REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR S/O KATUJI PAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-
202][REFERRED TO (PARA 9) 2.]
SURESH DNYANDEO KATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-
53][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. SAMEER SHETYE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-111][REFERRED TO]
MUSTAQ ALI MANULLAH SALMANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-
6-153][REFERRED TO]
TULSHIRAM NARAYAN PARDHI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-
2015-3-338][REFERRED TO]
SARJERAO RAMBHAU MACHALE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-
2015-7-179][REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK BAPURAO YEDAGE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-
70][REFERRED TO]
RAJU BABU PATEL VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-
113][REFERRED TO]
SHRI. SANDEEP PRABHAKAR VADNERKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-386][REFERRED TO]
Rambharose VS. State of Madhya Pradesh [LAWS(MPH)-1973-12-13][REFERRED TO]
SHIVRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1974-10-16][REFERRED TO]
M P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-
1991-11-1][REFERRED TO]
Hiralal VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1992-9-33][REFERRED TO]
RAMADHIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1995-11-54][REFERRED
TO]
KODULAL ALIAS LAXMAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2010-2-
49][REFERRED TO]
MEENA BAI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-136][REFERRED TO]
GAJADHAR PRASAD VS. SHAKUNTALA MISHRA [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-185][REFERRED
TO]
PARAMANANDA PATRA VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1969-1-4][REFERRED TO]
RENTA ALIAS SANKAR MAJHI ALIAS SUNDARA MAJHI VS. THE STATE [LAWS(ORI)-
1971-4-18][REFERRED TO]
SUKRU SA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1973-2-12][REFERRED TO : 1964 (2) CRI
LJ 472 (SC).]
MAKRA SINGH VS. THE STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1973-10-8][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BAGH SYAMA [LAWS(ORI)-1976-7-22][REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRASAD ROUT VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1981-12-4][REFERRED TO :
1964 (2) CRI LJ 472.]
SUNDAR BAIRAGI VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1983-9-18][REFERRED TO]
KHAGESWAR PUJARI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1983-12-3][REFERRED TO]
BUTU ALIAS MADHUA ORAM VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1985-8-26][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. KHETRABASI BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-1985-10-9][REFERRED TO]
SHAMA TUDU VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1986-4-35][REFERRED TO]
Page 7 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

GOUR CHANDRA VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1989-5-1][RELIED ON]

STATE OF ORISSA VS. ASHOK KUMAR PANIGRAHI [LAWS(ORI)-1989-5-14][REFERRED
TO]
SARAT NAIK VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1990-2-26][REFERRED TO]
RAGHU PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1992-8-2][REFERRED TO]
AJAYA MAHAKUD VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1992-11-2][REFERRED TO]
RAGHU PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1992-8-29][REFERRED TO]
BUDU HONTAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2002-3-32][REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. KALLA ALIAS DEBABRATA MAHARANA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-2-
9][REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-4-50][REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN GAGARAI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2011-7-7][REFERRED TO]
SIBA CHARAN SABAR VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2011-7-55][REFERRED TO]
HEDU @ RAJU SANDIL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-3-66][REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ANANTA MURMU [LAWS(ORI)-2016-6-9][REFERRED TO]
PRADIP KUMAR DASH VS. STATE OF ORISSA (VIG.) [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-
28][REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (RURAL) AND
ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1968-4-24][REFERRED TO]
CHARAN KAUR VS. HAKAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-844][REFERRED TO]
MITHU PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1966-4-12][REFERRED TO]
DIGAMBAR MANJHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1990-3-26][REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1991-11-19][REFERRED
TO]
SITA RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1998-2-74][REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARUP THAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-10-56][REFERRED TO]
NANHAK RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2005-11-41][REFERRED TO]
VIVEKANAND MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-12-4][REFERRED TO]
MUNNA SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-10-114][REFERRED TO]
RAJAN TIWARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-7-18][REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHOLA SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-11-27][REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-4-5][REFERRED TO]
GULJARA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1970-2-8][REFERRED TO]
NAGJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-4-6][REFERRED TO]
NAGJI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-4-28][REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-2-44][REFERRED
TO]
GANPAT RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-7-7][REFERRED TO]
AJIT BHANU SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-2-56][RELIED ON]
SUBHASHCHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-1-83][REFERRED
TO]
BHARAT KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-1-13][REFERRED TO]
VIDHYA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-1-21][REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-9-56][REFERRED TO]
SWARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-5-360][REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-9-62][REFERRED TO]
C P JOSHI VS. KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-3-17][REFERRED TO]
TSHERING LEPCHA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2010-9-12][REFERRED TO]
LOK BAHADUR DAHAL VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2012-9-2][REFERRED TO]
Page 8 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

PRAKASH SAHA, S/O BHAGWAN PRASAD SAHA, R/O RANIPOOL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.
RANIPOOL, EAST SIKKIM VS. STATE OF SIKKIM REPRESENTED BY AND THROUGH
THE OFFICE OF THE LD. ADVOCATE GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
[LAWS(SIK)-2012-8-5][REFERRED TO]
BALSAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) [LAWS(CHH)-2001-
8-12][REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2005-4-3][REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2006-11-
10][REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISHGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2006-11-
4][REFERRED TO]
SUKHLAL VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2006-4-24][REFERRED TO]
HARIRAM VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2007-10-19][REFERRED TO]
RAMDAYAL PANDO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2009-2-
14][REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-8-1][REFERRED
TO]
KISHORE KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2013-9-1][REFERRED
TO]
MADVI CHAITU, S/O CHAMRU MADIA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-
2015-12-28][REFERRED TO]
AMIT KUMAR DEY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-6-43][REFERRED TO]

[-] Referred Acts:

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898 , S. 162
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , ART. 136
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 , S. 101 , S. 105 , S. 137 , S. 145 , S. 154
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 , S. 84

Citations:
AIR(SC) 1964 0 1563, CRLJ 1964 0 472, GLHEL 1964 0 7158, GLR 1964 0 911, KHC 1964
0 596, LAWS(SC) 1964 3 32, SCJ 1965 2 531, SCR 1964 7 361,
Expert View:
A. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the entire
evidence placed before him, came to the conclusion that the accused
had failed to satisfy him that when he committed the murder of his
wife he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act that what
he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law__ . Learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court, having
believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, should have
held that the accused had discharged the burden placed on him of
proving that at the time he killed his wife he was incapable of
knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either
wrong or contrary to law__ . He further contended that even if he
had failed to establish that fact conclusively, the evidence adduced
was such as to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge as
regards one of the ingredients of the offence, namely, criminal
intention, and, therefore, the court should have acquitted him for the

Page 9 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

reason that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt__ . (3) Even if the accused was not able to
establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed
the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or
by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence,
including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court would
be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general
burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged__ .
The court, therefore, can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put
questions to him which might be put in the cross-examination at any
stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care to
give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the
answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-
chief__ .
B. When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider
whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the
nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or
contrary to law__ . Though the father of the deceased was staying in
a village only a few miles away from the village of the accused and
though the betrothal was fixed 5 years before the marriage, he did
not know that the accused was insane, for if he had known that such
was the mental condition of the accused, he would not have given
his daughter in marriage to him__ . Before the commencement of
the trial in the Sessions Court on June 27, 1959, an application was
filed on behalf of the accused, supported by an affidavit filed by the
father of the accused, praying that, as the accused had become
insane, he should be sent for proper medical treatment and
observation__ .
C. He further contended that even if he had failed to establish that fact
conclusively, the evidence adduced was such as to raise a
reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge as regards one of the
ingredients of the offence, namely, criminal intention, and,
therefore, the court should have acquitted him for the reason that
the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt__
The court, therefore, can permit a person, who calls a witness, to
put questions to him which might be put in the cross-examination at
any stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care
to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the
answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-
chief__ "Broadly stated, the position in the present case is that the
witnesses in their statements before the police attributed a clear
intention to the accused to commit murder, but before the court they
stated that the accused was insane and therefore, he committed the
murder__ In short, all the witnesses in one voice suggested that the
accused was under a hallucination that the deceased had murdered
his mother and burnt his father's house and, therefore, he killed her
in that state of mind without knowing what he was doing__ Learned
Page 10 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court, having
believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, should have
held that the accused had discharged the burden placed on him of
proving that at the time he killed his wife he was incapable of
knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either
wrong or contrary to law__ State of Madhya Pradesh (S) AIR 1956
Nag 187 has struck a different note inasmuch as it held that the
benefit of doubt which the law gives on the presumption of
innocence is available only where the prosecution had not been able
to connect the accused with the occurrence and that it had nothing
to do with the mental state of the accused__
D. On the other hand the existence of the weapons in the room, the
closing of the door from inside, his reluctance to come out of the
room till the Mukhi came, even if that fact is true, would indicate
that it was a premeditated murder and that he knew that if he came
out of the room before the Mukhi came he might be manhandled. --
the accused obviously expected him to come on April 9, 1959 and
tolerated the presence of his wife in his house till then;
JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. This appeal raises the question of the defence of insanity for an offence under S. 302 of

the Indian Penal code.

2. The appellant was the husband of the deceased Kalavati. She was married to the

appellant in the year 1958. On the night of April 9, 1959, as usual, the appellant and his

wife slept in their bed-room and the doors leading to that room were bolted from inside. At

about 3 or 3.30 a.m. on the next day Kalvati cried that she was being killed. The
neighbours collected in front of the said room and called upon the accused to open to

door. When the door was opened they found Kalavati dead with a number of wounds on

her body. The accused was sent up for trial to the sessions on the charge of murder.

Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaira, a defence was set up that the accused was

insane when the incident was alleged to have taken place and was not capable of

understanding the nature of his act.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the entire evidence placed before

him, came to the conclusion that the accused had failed to satisfy him that when he

committed the murder of his wife he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act that

Page 11 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Having rejected his plea of

insanity, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under S. 302 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On appeal the

High Court agreed with that finding, though for different reasons, and confirmed the

conviction and sentence of accused. Hence the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court, having believed the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, should have held that the accused had discharged

the burden placed on him of proving that at the time he killed his wife he was incapable of

knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. He

further contended that even if he had failed to establish that fact conclusively, the evidence

adduced was such as to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge as regards one

of the ingredients of the offence, namely, criminal intention, and, therefore, the court

should have acquitted him for the reason that the prosecution had not proved the case

beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Before we address ourselves to the facts of the case and the findings arrived at by the
High Court, it would be convenient to notice the relevant aspects of the law of the plea of

insanity. At the outset let us consider the material provisions without reference to decided
cases. The said provisions are:

Indian Penal Code.

Section 299. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits

the offence of culpable homicide.

Section 84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of

mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Indian Evidence Act.

Section 105. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of providing the existence of circumstances bringing

the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or within any special exception or

Page 12 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall

presume the absence of such circumstances.

Section 4. "Shall presume":Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume

a fact, it shall regard such facts as proved unless and until it is disproved.

"Proved":A fact is said to be "proved" when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or

considers its existence so probable that a prudent main ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon

the supposition that it exists.

"Disproved"; A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it

does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the

particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

Section 101:Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of

facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused in presumed to be

innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention

described in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it

always rests on the prosecution. But, S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing

is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that Act, by reason of unsoundness of

mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either

wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under S. 105 of the Evidence Act the

burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said

exception lies on the accused, and the court shall presume the absence of such

circumstances. Under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall

presume" in S. 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as

proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said

circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under

Page 13 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To

put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such

circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it

consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent; man would

act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the material

placed before the court, such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions,

admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of "prudent man" the

accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to

discharge the burden under S. 105 of the evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable

doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the

offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge

whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of the Indian Penal

Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that

even the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There

is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which

never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of

insanity.

6. The text books placed before us and the decisions cited at the Bar lead to the same
conclusion. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 10, at page No. 288, it is stated

thus:

"The onus of establishing insanity is on the accused. The burden of proof upon him is no higher than which rests upon a

party to civil proceedings."

Glanveille Williams in his book "Criminal Law", General Part, 2nd Edn., places the relevant

aspect in the correct perspective thus, at page No. 516:

"As stated before, to find that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his act is, in part only another way of

finding that be was ignorant as to some fact constituting an ingredient of the crime; and if the crime is one requiring

intention or recklessness he must, on the view advanced in this book, be innocent of mens rea. Since the persuasive

burden of proof of mens rea, is on the prosecution, no question of defence, or of disease of the mind, arises except in so

Page 14 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

far as the prisoner is called upon for his own safety to neutralise the evidence of the prosecution. No persuasive burden of

proof rests on him, and if the jury are uncertain whether the allegation of mens rea is made out .....the benefit of the doubt

must be given to the prisoner, for, in the words of Lord Reading in another context, "the Crown would then have failed to

discharge the burden imposed on it by our law of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner."

This Court in K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, (1962) 1 Suppl. SCR 567 at pages

597, 598 had to consider the question of burden of proof in the context of a defence based

on the exception embodied in S. 80 of the Indian Penal Code. In that context law is

summarized thus:

"The alleged conflict between the general burden which lies on the prosecution and the special burden imposed on the

accused under S. 105 of the Evidence Act is more imaginary than real. Indeed, there is no conflict at all. There may arise

three different situations:(1) A statute may throw the burden of proof of all or some of the ingredients of an offence on the

accused:(see Ss. 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act). (2) The special burden may not touch the ingredients of the

offence, but only the protection given on the assumption of the proof of the said ingredients:(see Ss. 77, 78, 79, 81 and 88

of the Indian Penal Code). (3) It may relate to an exception, some of the many circumstances required to attract the

exception, if proved, affecting the proof of all or some of their ingredients of the offence:(see S. 80 of the Indian Penal

Code).....In the third case, though the burden lies on the accused to bring his case within the exception the facts proved

may not discharge the said burden but may affect the proof of the ingredients of the offence."

After giving an illustration, this Court proceeded to state:

"That evidence may not be sufficient to prove all the ingredients of S. 80 of the Indian Penal Code, but may prove that the

shooting was by accident or inadvertence, i.e., it was done without any intention or requisite state of mind, which is the

essence of the offence, within the meaning of S. 300, Indian Penal Code, or at any rate may throw a reasonable doubt on

the essential ingredients of the offence of murder.... ... ... In this view it might be said that the general burden to prove the

ingredients of the offence, unless there is a specific statute to the contrary, is always on the prosecution, but the burden to

prove the circumstances coming under the exceptions lies upon the accused."

What is said of S. 80 of the Indian Penal Code will equally apply to S. 84 thereof. A

Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Kamla Singh v. The State, (S) AIR 1955 Pat 209

invoked the same principle when the plea of insanity was raised. A Division Bench of the

Nagpur High Court in Ramhitram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (S) AIR 1956 Nag 187 has

struck a different note inasmuch as it held that the benefit of doubt which the law gives on

the presumption of innocence is available only where the prosecution had not been able to

connect the accused with the occurrence and that it had nothing to do with the mental
Page 15 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

state of the accused. With great respect, we cannot agree with this view. If this view were

correct, the court would be helpless and would be legally bound to convict an accused

even though there was genuine and reasonable doubt in its mind that the accused had not

the requisite intention when he did the act for which he was charged. This view is also

inconsistent with that expressed in Nanavati's case (supra). A Scottish Case, H. M.

Advocate v. Fraser (1878) 4 Couper 70, noticed in Glanville Williams' "Criminal Law". The

General Part, 2nd Edn., at page No. 517, pinpoints the distinction between these two

categories of burden of proof. There, a man killed his baby while he was asleep; he was

dreaming that he was struggling with a wild beast. The learned author elaborates the

problem thus:

"When the Crown proved that the accused had killed his baby what may be called on evidential presumption or

presumption of fact arose that the killing was murder. Has no evidence been adduced for the defence the jury could have

been upheld on appeal. The burden of adducing evidence of the delusion therefore lay on the accused. Suppose that,

when all the evidence was in, the jury did not know what to make of the matter. They might suspect the accused to be

inventing a tale to cover his guilt, and yet not be reasonably certain about it. In that event the accused would be entitled to

an acquittal. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the actus reus but the mens rea."

7. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the

following propositions:(1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving

that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is

a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime,

in the sense laid down by S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code:the accused may rebut it by

placing before the court all the relevant evidence - oral documentary or circumstantial, but

the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

(3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the

time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by

the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or

more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case

Page 16 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of

proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.

8. Now we come to the merits of the case. Ordinarily this Court in exercise of its

Jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution accepts the findings of fact arrived at by the

High Court. But after having gone through the judgments of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge and the High Court, we are satisfied that this is an exceptional case to
depart from the said practice. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that their version was a subsequent

development designed to help the accused. The learned Judges of the High Court

accepted their evidence for two different reasons. Raju, J., held that a court can permit a

party calling a witness to put questions under S. 154 of the Evidence Act only in the

examination-in-chief of the witness; for this conclusion, he has given the following two

reasons:(1) the wording of Ss. 137 and 154 of the Evidence Act indicates it, and (2) if he is

permitted to put questions in the nature of cross-examination at the stage of re-

examination by the party, the adverse party will have no chance of cross-examining the

witness with reference to the answers given to the said questions. Neither of the two

reasons, in our view, is tenable. Section 137 of the Evidence Act gives only the three

stages, in the examination of a witness, namely mination-in-chief, cross-examinationexa

and re-examination. This is a routine sequence in the examination of a witness. This has

no relevance to the question when a party calling a witness can be permitted to put to him
questions under S. 154 of the Evidence Act:that is governed by the provisions of S. 154 of

the said Act, which confers a discretionary power on the court to permit a person who calls
a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the

adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication confine the
exercise of the power by the court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any

particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and the discretion is

entirely left to the court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. To confine

Page 17 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

this power to the stage of examination-in-chief is to make it ineffective in practice. A clever,

witness in his examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police

or in the committing court, but in the cross-examination introduces statements in a subtle

way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examination-in-chief. If his design is

obvious, we do not see why the court cannot, during the course of his cross-examination,

(sic-re-examination) permit the person calling him as witness to put questions to him which

might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. To confine the operation of S. 154

of the Evidence Act to a particular stage in the examination of a witness is to read words in

the section which are not there. We cannot also agree with the High Court that if a party

calling a witness is permitted to put such questions to the witness after he has been cross-

examined by the adverse party, the adverse party will not have any opportunity to further

cross-examine the witness on the answers elicited by putting such questions. In such an

event the court certainly, in exercise of its discretion, will permit the adverse party to cross-

examine the witness on the answers elicited by such questions. The court, therefore, can

permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in the

cross-examination at any stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care to

give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do

not find place in the examination-in-chief. In the present case what happened was that

some of the witnesses faithfully repeated what they had stated before the police in the

examination-in-chief, but in the cross-examination they came out with the story of insanity

of the accused. The court, at the request of the Advocate for the prosecution, permitted

him to cross-examine the said witnesses. It is not suggested that the Advocate appearing

for the accused asked for a further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and was

denied of it by the court. The procedure followed by the learned Judge does not conflict

with the express provisions of S. 154 of the Evidence Act. Mehta. J., accepted the

evidence of the witnesses on the ground that the earlier statements made by them, before

the police did not contradict their evidence in the court, as the non-mention of the mental

state of the accused in the earlier statements was only an omission. This reason given by
Page 18 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

the learned Judge is also not sound. This Court in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U. P. (1959)

2 Suppl. SCR 875 at page No. 903 laid down the following text, for ascertaining under

what circumstances an alleged omission can be relied upon to contradict the positive

evidence in court:

"....(3) though a particular statement is not expressly recorded, a statement that can be deemed to be part of that

expressly recorded can be used for contradiction, not because it is an omission strictly so-called but because it is deemed

to form part of the recorded statement; (4) such a fiction is permissible by construction only in the following three cases:(i)

when a recital is necessarily implied from the recital or recitals found in the statement .......:(ii) a negative aspect of a

positive recital in a statement ......; and (iii) when the statement before the police and that before the Court cannot stand
together......"Broadly stated, the position in the present case is that the witnesses in their statements before the police

attributed a clear intention to the accused to commit murder, but before the court they stated that the accused was insane

and therefore, he committed the murder. In the circumstances it was necessarily implied in the previous statements of the

witnesses before the police that the accused was not insane at the time he committed the murder. In this view the

previous statements of the witnesses before the police can be used to contradict their version in the court. The judgment

of the High Court, therefore, in relying upon some of the important prosecution witnesses was vitiated by the said errors of

law. We would, therefore, proceed to consider the entire evidence for ourselves.

9. When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of

commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable

of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to

law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time

when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to

be entitled to the benefit of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from

the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime.

10. The first question is, what is the motive for the appellant to kill his wife in the ghastly

manner he did by inflicting 44 knife injuries on her body Natverlal Atmaram, the father of

the deceased Kalavati, was examined as P. W. 13. He said that about 20 days before his

daughter was murdered he received a letter from the accused asking him to take away his

daughter on the ground that he did not like her; that he went to Bherai with that letter,

showed it to Chhaganbhai, the father of the accused, and had a talk with him about it, that

Page 19 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

Chhaganbhai took that letter from him and promised to persuade the accused not to

discard his wife; that, after a week he again went to Bherai and asked the accused why he

did not like the deceased and the accused replied that he did not like her as she was not

working properly and that thereafter he went back to his village and sent a message

through someone that he would go to Bherai to take his daughter on Chaitra Sudi 1. The

murder took place on the night before Chaitra Sudi 1. In the cross-examination he

admitted that he did not tell the police that he had given the letter to the father of the

accused, but he told the Sub-Inspector that he had shown the letter to him. Chhaganlal,

the father of the accused as P. W. 7, no doubt denied that Natvarlal gave him the letter

written by the accused, but he admitted that Natvarlal came to his village 10 or 15 days

before the incident to take his daughter away. The evidence of Natvarlal that he went to

the village of the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 7. It is, therefore, likely

that the accused wrote a letter to Natvarlal to take away Kalavati and it is also likely that

Natvarlal gave that letter to P. W. 7 to persuade his son not to discard his wife. P. Ws. 2 to

7 said in the cross-examination that the accused and his wife were on cordial terms, but,

as we will indicate later in our judgment, all these witnesses turned hostile in the sessions

court and made a sustained attempt to support the case of insanity. That apart, their

evidence does not disclose what opportunities they had to notice the cordial relation that

existed between the accused and the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

rightly disbelieved their evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who had seen

Natvarlal in the witness-box, has accepted his evidence. We, having gone through his

evidence, see no reason to differ from the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge. It is also not denied that though the accused was in Ahmedabad for ten months, he

did not take his wife with him. We accept the evidence at Natvarlal and hold that the

accused did not like his wife and, therefore, wanted his father-in-law to take her away to

his home and that his father-in-law promised to do so before Chaitra Sudi 1.

11. The next question is, what was the previous history of the mental condition of the

Page 20 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

accused Here again, the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 7, deposed for the first time in

the sessions court that 4 to 5 years before the incident the accused was getting fits of

insanity. But all these witnesses stated before the police that the accused had committed

the murder of his wife, indicating thereby that he was sane at that time. Further, their

evidence is inconsistent with the facts established in the case. During this period. it was

admitted by P. W. 7, the accused was not treated by any doctor. Prior to the incident he

was serving in Ahmedabad in Monogram Mills for about a year and a half. Though the

father of the deceased was staying in a village only a few miles away from the village of

the accused and though the betrothal was fixed 5 years before the marriage, he did not

know that the accused was insane, for if he had known that such was the mental condition

of the accused, he would not have given his daughter in marriage to him. It is impossible to

conceive that he would not have known that the accused was insane if he was really so,

and particularly when it is the case of the accused that it was not kept secret but was well

known to many people and to some of the witnesses, who came to depose for him. A

month and a half prior to the incident Chhaganlal had gone to Ahmedabad for medical

treatment and during that period the accused came from Ahmedabad to manage his

father's shop in his absence. The fact that he was recalled from Ahmedabad was not

disputed:but, while Natverlal said that the accused was recalled in order to manage

Chhaganlal's shop in his absence, Chhaganlal said that he was recalled because he was

getting insane. The best evidence would have been that of the relative in whose house the

accused was residing in Ahmedbad. But the relative was not examined. It appears to us

that the accused was serving in Ahmedabad in Monogram Mills and was asked to come to

the village of his father to attend to the latter's business a month and a half before the

incident, as the father was leaving for Ahmedabad for medical treatment. Before the

commencement of the trial in the Sessions Court on June 27, 1959, an application was

filed on behalf of the accused, supported by an affidavit filed by the father of the accused,

praying that, as the accused had become insane, he should be sent for proper medical

treatment and observation. In that affidavit it was not stated that the accused was getting
Page 21 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

fits of insanity for the last 4 or 5 years and that he had one such fit at that time. If that was

a fact, one would expect the father to allege prominently the said fact in his affidavit. These

facts lead to a reasonable inference that the case of the accused that he had periodical fits

of insanity was an afterthought. The general statements of witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 6 that he

had such fits must, therefore, necessarily be false. We, therefore, hold that the accused

had no antecedent history of insanity.

12. Now coming to the date when the incident took place, P. W. 7, the father of the

accused, said that the accused was insane for 2 or 3 days prior to the incident. His

evidence further discloses that he and his wife had gone to Ahmedabad on the date of the

incident and returned in the same evening. If really the accused had a fit of insanity a day

or two before the incident, is it likely that both the parents would have left him and gone to

Ahmedabad To get over this incongruity P. W. 7 said that he went to Ahmedabad to see a

bridegroom for his daughter and also to get medicine for the accused. But he did not say

which doctor he consulted and wherefrom he purchased the medicines or whether in fact

he bought any medicines at all. If the accused had a fit of insanity, is it likely that the wife

would have slept with him in the same room We, must, therefore, hold that it has not been

established that 2 or 3 days before the incident the accused had a fit of insanity.

13. Now we come to the evidence of what happened on the night of the incident. Nobody

except the accused knows what happened in the bed-room. P. Ws. 2 to 7 deposed that on

the 10th April, 1959, corresponding to Chaitra Sudi 1, between 3 and 4 a.m. they heard

shouts of the deceased Kalavati to the effect that she was being killed; that they all went to

the room but found it locked from inside; that when the accused was asked to open the

door, he said that he would open it only after the Mukhi (P .W. 1) was called; that after the

Mukhi came there, the accused opened the door and came out of the room with a blood-

stained knife in his hand, that the accused began talking irrelevantly and was speaking

"why, you killed my mother - "why, you burnt my father's house -; that afterwards the

accused sat down and threw dust and mud at the persons gathered there; and that he was

Page 22 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

also laughing without any cause. In short, all the witnesses in one voice suggested that the

accused was under a hallucination that the deceased had murdered his mother and burnt

his father's house and, therefore, he killed her in that state of mind without knowing what

he was doing. But none of these witnesses had described the condition of the accused

immediately when he came out of the room, which they did so graphically in the sessions

court, at the time when they made statements before the police. In effect they stated

before the police that the accused came out of the room with a bloodstained knife in his

hand and admitted that he had murdered his wife; but in the witness-box they said that

when the accused came out of the room he was behaving like a mad man and giving

imaginary reasons for killing his wife. The statements made in the depositions are really

inconsistent with the earlier statements made before the police and they are, therefore,

contradictions within the meaning of S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We cannot

place any reliance on the evidence of these witnesses; it is an obvious development to

help the accused.

14. The subsequent events leading up to the trial make it abundantly clear that the plea of

insanity was a belated afterthought and a false case. After the accused came out of the

room, he was taken to the chora and was confined in a room in the chora. P. W. 16, the

police sub-inspector reached Bherai at about 9.30 a.m. He interrogated the accused;
recorded his statement and arrested him at about 10.30 a.m. According to him, as the

accused was willing to make a confession, he was sent to the judicial magistrate. This
witnesses described the condition of the accused when he met him thus:

"When I went in the Chora he had saluted me and he was completely sane. There was absolutely no sign of insanity and

he was not behaving as an insane man. He was not abusing. He had replied to my questions understanding them and

was giving relevant replies. And therefore I had sent him to the Magistrate for confession as he wanted to confess."

There is no reason to disbelive this evidence, particularly when this is consistent with the

subsequent conduct of the accused. But P. W. 9, who attested the panchanama, Ex. 19,

recording the condition of the accused's body and his clothes, deposed that the accused

Page 23 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

was murmuring and laughing. But no mention of his condition was described in the

panchnama. Thereafter, the accused was sent to the Medical Officer, Matar, for

examination and treatment of his injuries. The doctor examined the accused at 9.30 p.m.

and gave his evidence as P. W. 11. He proved the certificate issued by him, Ex. 23.

Nothing about the mental condition of the accused was noted in that certificate. Not a

single question was put to this witnesses in the cross-examination about the mental

condition of the accused. On the same day, the accused was sent to the Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, for making a confession. On the next day he was produced before

the said Magistrate, who asked him the necessary questions and gave him the warning

that his confession would be used against him at the trial. The accused was given time for

reflection and was produced before the Magistrate on April 13, 1959. On that date he

refused to make the confession. His conduct before the Magistrate, as recorded in Ex. 31

indicates that he was in a fit condition to appreciate the questions put to him and finally to

make up his mind not to make the confession which he had earlier offered to do. During

the enquiry proceedings under Ch. XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no suggestion

was made on behalf of the accused that he was insane. For the first time on June 27,

1959, at the commencement of the trial in the sessions court an application was filed on

behalf of the accused alleging that he was suffering from an attack of insanity. On June 29,

1959, the Sessions Judge sent the accused to the Civil Surgeon, Khaira, for observation.

On receiving his report, the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated July 13, 1959,

found the accused insane and incapable of making his defence. On August 28, 1959, the

court directed the accused to be sent to the Superintendent of Mental Hospital, Baroda, for

keeping him under observation with a direction to send his report on or before September

18, 1959. The said Superintendent sent his report on August 27, 1960 to the effect that the

accused was capable of understanding the proceedings of the court and of making his

defence in the court. On enquiry the court held that the accused could understand the

proceedings of the case and was capable of making his defence. At the commencement of

the trial, the pleader for the accused stated that the accused could understand the
Page 24 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

proceedings. The proceedings before the Sessions Judge only show that for a short time

after the case had commenced before him the accused was insane. But that fact would not

establish that the accused was having fits of insanity for 4 or 5 years before the incident

and that at the time he killed his wife he had such a fit of insanity as to give him the benefit

of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The said entire conduct of the accused from the time he

killed his wife upto the time the sessions proceedings commenced is inconsistent with the

fact that he had a fit of insanity when he killed his wife.

15. It is said that the situation in the room supports the version that the accused did not

know what he was doing. It is asked, why the accused, should have given so many stabs

to kill an unarmed and undefended woman It is said that it discloses that the accused was

doing the act under some ;hallucination. On the other hand the existence of the weapons

in the room, the closing of the door from inside, his reluctance to come out of the room till

the Mukhi came, even if that fact is true, would indicate that it was a premeditated murder

and that he knew that if he came out of the room before the Mukhi came he might be

manhandled. Many sane men give more than the necessary stabs to their victims. The

number of blows given might perhaps reflect his vengeful mood or his determination to see

that the victim had no escape. One does not count his strokes when he commits murder.

We, therefore, do not see any indication of insanity from the materials found in the room;
on the other hand they support the case of premeditated murder.

16. To summarize:the accused did not like his wife; even though he was employed in

Ahmedabad and stayed there for about 10 months, he did not take his wife with him; he

wrote a letter to his father-in-law to the effect that the accused did not like her and that he

should take her away to his house; the father-in-law promised to come on Chaitra Sudhi 1;

the accused obviously expected him to come on April 9, 1959 and tolerated the presence

of his wife in his house till then; as his father-in-law did not come on or before April 9,

1959, the accused in anger or frustration killed his wife. It has not been established that he

was insane; nor the evidence is sufficient even to throw a reasonable doubt in our mind

Page 25 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.

The Laws - Licensed To :- Sowmya Bhattacharjee, Client Code:-[11334]

that the act might have been committed when the accused was in a fit of insanity. We,

therefore, though for different reasons, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court and dismiss the appeal.

Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.

Page 26 of 26 Copyright © 2023 by Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.