Amruta Gunda Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Majithia, J.—Amruta Gunda Shinde, accused-appellant, was charged for intentionally causing the death of Dattatraya Jadhav and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself by means of a broken bottle and also dashing his head against one stonary substance and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 309 of Indian Penal Code. The charges having been proved he was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by judgment and order dated March 11, 1993. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

The prosecution story lies in a narrow compass.

PW-8, Laxman Narasu Koli was working as Police Patil of village Takawada. On October 19, 1991 in between 6.30 and 6.45 p.m. he received information through Tanji Shinde, brother of the accused, that the accused has murdered Shivaji Shinde. On receiving the information he left for the place of occurrence. On the way Ganpa Jadhav informed him that Dattatraya Jadhav was murdered. On the spot he noticed a crowd. The accused was besmeared with blood and was holding an iron bar in his hand. He could not go close to the place of incident in view of the situation at that time. He went to Ichalkaranji Police Station and informed the Police about the incident. The police came to the spot. PW-10, P.S.I. Dattatraya Sonawane, left for the place of occurrence immediately.

PW-1, Minabai Jadhav, lodged a report at Shirol Police Station. She stated therein that early in the morning after taking bath and tea she and her husband, since deceased, had gone to the cattle-shed to remove the cow-dung. When she was collecting the cow-dung her husband had gone to collect grass. At that time their neighbour the accused called her husband for chewing tobacco. Her husband went towards him. She heard that her husband and the accused were quarrelling and her husband raised a cry ''melo melo''. She noticed that the accused has assaulted her husband on his head with iron bar. She tried to intervene but was threatened by the accused that if she intervened she would be killed. The complaint was proved by her at the trial and it was marked Exhibit-23.

PW-10 Investigating Officer reached the spot. He drew inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and also recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused was arrested on October 31, 1991. He sent the seized articles to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet on November 30, 1991 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaysingpur who committed the case to the Court of Session at Kolhapur.

The accused took a plea of insanity in his defence. The learned trial Judge relying upon the ocular evidence of eye witnesses and the circumstantial evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. She was present in the house when the occurrence took place. She stated that on the date of the occurrence she had gone to the cattle-shed and her husband also came there. The accused came there and offered tobacco to her husband. The accused and her husband were at a distance of 2 to 3 feet from her. After offering tobacco the accused gave blows on the head of her husband with iron bar. The iron bar was 1 1/2 feet in length. She identified the weapon of offence at the trial. She raised hue and cry and her in-laws also came to the spot. In the cross-examination, only one question was put to her and that is with regard to the location of the house of the accused. She stated that the house of the accused is in front of their house. PW-2, Raghunath Huparikar, is running a bakery shop in the village. He corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in material particulars except that he stated that the accident took place in front of the shop of the witness. Unfortunately it was not explained that a room in the house of the deceased is used as a shop. In cross-examination it was suggested to him that on the date of incident the accused was dancing in the morning by keeping a dog on his head. PW-3, Babasaheb Godhade witnessed the offence and stated that accused gave two blows with iron bar on the head of the deceased. His evidence so far it relates to the assault on the deceased was not challenged in cross-examination. The suggestion put to him was that the witness might not have been able to see the assault. PW-4, Datta Kamble stated that on the date of the incident he was going from his house to his field crossing the shop of the accused. In his presence the accused gave tobacco and lime to the deceased. When the deceased was going away the accused attacked him with iron bar and gave blows on the back side and on the head of the accused. He was not cross-examined. PW-5, Balasaheb Pawar corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and gave particulars and also stated that the family members of the deceased had arrived at the spot. PW-6, Ramchandra Kale, stated that he had not seen the occurrence but he admitted that he had seen iron bar in the hands of the accused while he was dancing. In the cross-examination he stated that prior to the incident he got the brother of the accused admitted in the hospital. PW-7, Sakhubai Dhangar, stated that she heard shouts coming out of the house and she saw the accused holding iron bars in his hands and the deceased was dead. She also noticed that the accused had an injury on the stomach and was dancing with a broken bottle. PW-8, Laxman Koli is the Police Patil who gave information to the police PW-9, Abdul Pirjade, Head Constable attached to Vadgaon Police Station recorded the first information report on the basis of the statement of PW-1. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer. The post-mortem notes were produced at Exhibit-32 by the Public Prosecutor. The authenticity was admitted by the accused. The post-mortem note indicates that the doctor who performed the autopsy noticed the following head injuries on the person of the deceased.

"1. CLW vertically placed on fronto-parietal region. 2cm. Lat to Rt. from mid-line.

6" x 1" x bone deep. Fracture skull present and brain matter torn and came through that.

5" oblique CLW on Rt. occipital-temporal region. 5" x 1" bone deep. Fracture skull present at that place and brain matter torn and came through that.

Incised wound on Rt. temporal region, oblique 1" x 1/2" x brain deep.

Incised wound on Rt. side forehead, vertical 2" x brain deep.

On Lat. side of Rt. eye-Incised wound present 1" x 1/2 x muscle deep.

Incised wound on Lt. side eye brow, Lat. aspect Horizontally placed. 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep.

CLW on Rt. Zygomatic region. Fracture of Zygomatic bone

Pinna of Rt. ear torn

Incised horizontal wound present on Lat. aspect to Rt. side from mid-line, at lower end of sternum. 1 1/2 "x muscle deep x 1/2 cm.

Vertical abrasion on sacral region .2 cm. x .25 cm.

(All are ante-mortem injuries)".

The cause of death as stated to be haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock due to grievous big compound fracture of skull bone right side and grievous injuries to brain matter right side. Relying upon the ocular evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the offences for which the appellant was charged stood proved. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has taken a plea of insanity and the case is covered u/s 84 I.P.C. He admitted that the appellant has not led any evidence. To earn exemption under this provision, the defence has to prove insanity of the accused at the time of the offending act. Proof has to be led by the accused of mental disease of delusion in the accused at the time when he committed the crime. Behaviour antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event may be relevant in finding the mental condition at the time of the incident. These relevant facts may be taken note of to appreciate the mental condition of the offender at the time of the incident. The defence of insanity can be established by direct evidence or by drawing an inference from the circumstances appearing in the prosecution case. There is on direct evidence examined by the accused. Learned Counsel for the accused stated that inferences can be drawn by the accused from the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. He submits that PW-2 admitted that on the date of the incident the accused was dancing with a dog on his head. He also drew our attention to the evidence of PW-7 who stated that he saw the accused was dancing with a broken bottle. This evidence does not suggest that the accused at the time of committing the act was not knowing the nature and quality of the Act. The accused may be feeling of admitting the crime but this does not even remotely bring the case of the accused within the four corners of Section 84 of I.P.C.

4-5. This appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on October 16, 1995 and the Bench passed the following order.

"The Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur is directed to obtain the report regarding the mental condition of Convicted Prisoner No. C-274, Amruta Gunda Shinde from the competent Psychiatrist, during his jail period. The report may be submitted to this Court on or before 30th November, 1995."

Pursuant thereto the report has been submitted by the Medical Officer attached to CPRH, Kolhapur Clauses 4 and 6 of the said report read thus :-

Clinical findings : Conscious, co-operative, attentive, speaks logically coherently. No hallucinations, no delusions oriented to time place, person Memory or Intelligence average, insight judgment normal.

Diagnosis : Mental status Exam. within normal limits."

From the above it is clear that the accused is not suffering from any disease and he is a normal person. The defence set up by the accused is only an after-thought. The prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.