LAW OF CRIMES (IPC)

TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINGARDI v/s STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

( 1991 CRLJ 2375 BOM )
Group G : Khushi Jain
Mariyah Alam
Farhan Memon
Zoya Shaikh
Soniya Mulchandani
TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINGARDI v/s STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
( 1991 CRLJ 2375 BOM )

Court : Bombay High Court

Case Type : Criminal Appeal
Case No. :819 of 1987
Citation : Criminal Law Journal
Date of Judgment : 30th July, 1990
Appellant : Tukappa Tamanna Lingardi
Respondent : State of Maharashtra
Bench : Justice V.P.Tipnis.
Justice M.S.Vaidya.
Facts :
. It was the prosecution story itself that the deceased as well as the
sister of the accused were in the market since before 1.30 noon. At
about 1.30 the sister had gone to police station to complain about
the deceased and had come back with the police constable when
suddenly the accused attacked the deceased and beheaded him. The
conduct of the accused in attacking the victim in the presence of
several persons who could have watched him committing the
offence was one of the pointers to his mental condition. The second
important thing was that after beheading the deceased, he picked
up the head and threw it in the air twice or thrice. This was
certainly not a conduct of a normal human being.
Much less so was the conduct of the appellant in bringing the head back near
the dead body and chopping it so much so that the brain matter fell out. The
accused had not stopped even at that time. After breaking the head, he again
picked it up and blew it up in the air. Having done all this if he was sane he
would have certainly made an attempt to run away from the place. The
appellant-accused did not do so, he stood or sat quietly near the scene of
offence till he was taken to the police station by the police. He did not offer any
resistance to the police nor is he said to have exhibited any recalcitrance
towards the police authorities. All these circumstances attending the act of the
alleged crime could be a pointer to the insane mental condition of the accused.
Here in the present case, it is not merely the nature of the act but the
circumstances preceding and subsequent to the incident of offence do warrant
a conclusion that the appellant has sufficiently discharged the burden of proof
cast upon him by law to prove that he was falling within the four corners of the
ambit of S.84 of the Penal Code.
Arguments by the Appellant :
. The appellant preferred a jail appeal contending that the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge had failed to appreciate and apply properly the provisions contained in S.
84 of the Indian Penal Code to the facts of the case and further, that he had erred
in appreciating the evidence on record which was in favour of the appellant. The
learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the ruling in Ratan Lal v. State of
M.P., and submitted that when the appellant was deprived of the opportunity right
from the initial stage to establish his insanity at the relevant point of time, the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have appreciated that fact in its due
perspective and should have held that on the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellant had succeeded in proving his defence in its totality by rebutting the
ordinary presumption of sanity which becomes available to the prosecution in
usual cases of this type. He submitted that the circumstances preceding the
incident of offence, attending the incident of offence as well as the subsequent
circumstances prove amply enough, that the appellant had rebutted the
presumption of sanity and that the evidence on record did prove to the satisfaction
of the Court his defence of insanity at the relevant point of time. He, therefore,
submitted that the appeal be allowed and the conviction and sentences awarded to
the appellant be set aside and that the appellant be set at liberty.
Arguments by the Respondent :
. Mrs. Rao, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State, relied upon several rulings on the point of presumption of sanity, the
rebuttal thereof and contended that in the circumstances of the case, the
very fact that the appellant had attacked a person against whom he had had
some grudge, itself indicated that the act of the appellant in committing the
murder in question was motivated, a circumstance which could prove that
he was not insane at the relevant point of time. According to her, the act of
the accused was an act of cold-blooded murder in broad day-light in a most
cruel manner and, therefore, the appellant was a rightly convicted by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge. She prayed that the conviction and the
sentences awarded to the appellant be confirmed.
• Judgment :
. VAIDYA, J. : -This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th April, 1987 under which
the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sawantwadi (Mr. S. R. Ganvatkar) had convicted the
appellant for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The name of the victim was Ajappa Fakirappa
Dasapanawar. The appellant was also convicted of offences punishable under Ss. 353 and
332 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to police constable Desai who was on duty on
the scene of offence at the relevant point of time. For the first mentioned offence, the
appellant was sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in
default to suffer R.I. for one month. For the latter mentioned offence the appellant was
sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer R.I.
for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The evidence
was recorded in course of time and the accused was defended at the trial by an Advocate
appointed by the State under the Legal Aid Scheme. The defence of the appellant at the trial
was that at the relevant point of time, he was insane and that as such, he did not know the
nature of the act committed by him. He had specifically claimed that he had fallen within
the scope of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code and that, therefore, he should not be held guilty
for any of the offences alleged. He had examined in defence three witness to prove his
defence. It as contended at the trial that in the circumstances of the case, the appellant
could not be held guilty of any of the offences charged against him ant that he deserved an
acquittal.
Having felt aggrieved by this decision, the appellant preferred a jail appeal contending that the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate and apply properly the provisions contained in S. 84 of the Indian
Penal Code to the facts of the case and further, that he had erred in appreciating the evidence on record
which was in favour of the appellant. The learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the ruling in Ratan
Lal v. State of U. P., AIR 1971 SC 778 : ( 1971 Cri LJ 654) and submitted that when the appellant was deprived
of the opportunity right from the initial stage to establish his insanity at the relevant point of time, the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have appreciated that fact in its due perspective and should have held
that on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant had succeeded in proving his defence in its totality
by rebutting the ordinary presumption of sanity which becomes available to the prosecution in usual cases of
this type. He submitted that the circumstances preceding the incident of offence, attending the incident of
offence as well as the subsequent circumstances prove amply enough. that the appellant had rebutted the
presumption of sanity and that the evidence on record did prove to the satisfaction of the Court his defence of
insanity at the relevant point of time. He. therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed and the conviction
and sentences awarded to the appellant be set aside and that the appellant be set at liberty. Mrs. Rao, the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, relied upon several ruling on the point of
presumption of sanity, the rebuttal thereof and contended that in the circumstances of the case, the very fact
that the appellant had attacked a person against whom he had, has some grudge, itself indicated that the act
of the appellant in committing the murder in question was motivated, a circumstance which could prove that
he was not insane at the relevant point of time. According to her, the act of the accused was an act of cold-
blooded murder in broad day-light in a most cruel manner and, therefore, the appellant was a rightly
convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. She prayed that the conviction and the sentence awarded to
the appellant be confirmed.
• Coming then to the arguments on the point of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the
section itself says that 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. The
section falls in Chap. IV of the Indian Penal Code which deals with 'General
Exceptions'. The reading of this section will not be complete unless it is read with
S.105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and particularly illustration (a) to that section.
The text of the section and the illustration may he quoted here with advantage :
"When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian
Penal Code, or within any special exception or 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. Illustration (a) A, accused of murder,
alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the
act. The burden of proof is on A." The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relied upon, in
this context, the classic ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC
998 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 43) which laid d own that the burden of proof that the mental
condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by S.84
of the Indian Penal Code lay on the accused who claimed the benefit of that
exemption. In that case, the defence had led evidence of a District Civil Surgeon and
Superintendent of the Mental Hospital both of whom had given evidence about the
nature of epileptic insanity. On facts, it was held that the evidence could not prove
the mental condition of the appellant at the time of the act. It must be pertinently
noted that it was not a plea in that case on behalf of the defense that the appellant was not in a position to
prove because of his insanity, that at the relevant point of time he was insane. 11. The next ruling relied upon
by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was in S. W. Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 2443 :
(1972 Cri LJ 1523) in which it was observed that the law presumed every person of the age of discretion to be
sane unless the contrary was proved. A caution note was sounded that it would be most dangerous to admit
the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime and that the mere fact
that no motive has been proved for the offence in question or that he had made no attempt to run away,
though it was possible for him to do so, would not indicate that he was insane. Laying down the similar
proposition as laid down in the former ruling, the conviction of the appellant before the Supreme Court was
confirmed by that Court after finding on facts, that the appellant had failed to prove the required state of mind
at the time of the commission of the offence. In this case also, it was not the plea of the defence that the
appellant was unable to prove his defence of insanity on account of his insanity. 12. In Oyami Ayatu v. State of
M. P., AIR 1974 SC 216 : (1974 Cri LJ 305), the Supreme Court had again referred to the presumption in favour
of sanity of the person of discretion and the awareness of the natural consequences of his act. It was pointed
out the presumption was rebuttable and that the accused could rebut it by placing before the Court all the
relevant evidence. It was also pointed out that the burden, in such cases, though not as heavy as upon the
prosecution In a criminal case, is upon the accused to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of the
commission of the offence and as such, incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what
was either wrong or contrary to law. In this case. the Supreme Court had noted (in para 5 of the AIR report)
that no plea was taken on behalf of the appellant at the trial that he was not a sane person. Much less was
there a plea on behalf of the defence in the trial Court that the accused before the Court was not in a position
to prove, on account of his insanity, his insanity at the relevant point of time.
• The evidence of the defence witnesses deserves to be appreciated on the background
of the aforesaid facts which have authentically come on record. D.W. 2 Hanamant
Lingardi happens to be a brother of the appellant. He told in his deposition that the
mental condition of the appellant was not satisfactory for about two years prior to the
incident and that it had particularly become so when one of the brothers of the
appellant, by name Ramappa, was murdered by deceased Ajappa about five years
ago. (It may be noted here that the first informant constable Desai had also referred to
this murder, but had told that it was committed two years ago). According to defence
witness Hanamant, after Ramappa's murder, the appellant became mentally affected
and had become an insane. He had started having fits of lunacy and, while in such fits,
he used to say that a tiger was coming to eat him or to kill him. He used to hear the
voice of tiger and used to refuse to take his food. Hanamant told that the accused used
to have sleepless nights and if at all he was asleep, he used to get up and run away
under the stress of fear from tiger. He added that whenever he saw deceased Ajappa
(victim), the appellant used to say that a tiger was coming and that he (tiger) would
kill him or eat him. Hanamant told that in such conditions of the appellant, it was for
Hanamant himself to control the accused. He stated that as the family had no money
for proper medical treatment, he was not taken to a hospital or a doctor, but was
taken to a village medical practitioner in Ayurvedic medicines for removing the
accused from the influence of evil spirits. He told that the appellant used to be out of
his fits - for sometime, but mostly reverted back to his fits of lunacy. Hanamant added
that on the date of the offence, the appellant was wandering in the forest with a
heavy sickle (pal koyta) expecting a tiger to come.
The evidence of the defence witness Pawar is to be read on this background. He
happens to be a village Medical Practitioner as well as probably a person professing
himself to be remover of evil spirits. Those who are conversant with the life in the
remotely situated interior of hilly areas of southern Konkan are conversant with the
practices adopted by such professionals and they would not be surprised at the
relatives of the appellant taking the appellant to such a professional for treatment. His
evidence need not be discarded on the background of the aforesaid circumstances
connected with the appellant. However, even if his evidence is accepted with a pinch of
salt along with the story made out by the appellant's brother that the appellant had
delusion about tiger, etc. one thing is clear from the evidence of this person that the
mental condition of the appellant was not normal before the incident, at about the
time of the incident or after the incident. In the result, we conclude that as the case of
the appellant is proved to be falling within the scope of Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code, he is not proved to have committed the offence of murder as alleged by the
prosecution. He is, therefore, entitled to an acquittal. Accordingly, we allow the
appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant and acquit him
of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless required in any other case, in view of the fact this pending appeal he
was found to be cured of his lunacy.