The appellant then tried to flee, throwing the sickle enroute, when he was apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police.
The same day, he later Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date 2018.07.02 assaulted Ulhas Rathor P.W.3 on his back and neck and 160357 IST Reason rained blows on the back and stomach of the deceased Harish Chandra Chauhan, when the latter tried to intervene.
The subsequent companyduct of the appellant while in custody, his demeanour during the trial, were further relied upon to companyclude that the appellant was companyscious of his wrongful acts which were deliberate in nature, evident from the repeated assaults and running away from the place of occurrence after throwing the sickle.
The appellant belonged to a very poor family and they companyld number be expected to keep his medical records and prescriptions meticulously.
On 11.04.2008, fresh report was called for and the appellant was prescribed Trinicalm Forte tablet Trinicalm Plus tablet amongst other medicines.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejected the defence plea for unsoundness of mind, citing insufficient evidence relying on the evidence of Dr. Sagar Srikant Chiddalwar C.W.1 that the appellant was number mentally sick and fit to face trial.
On 13.07.2007, the Trial Court directed him to be sent to the Mental Hospital and called for a fresh report.
There existed sufficient evidence for a plausible defence for unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 105 of the Evidence Act on a preponderance of the probability.
The prosecution failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal, for which reliance was placed on Elavarasan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 7 SCC 110.
In the morning of 26.09.2006, the appellant suddenly picked up a sickle from the shop floor of the iron smith and attempted to assault Gulab Pawar P.W.11 , but which injured Santosh Jadhav P.W.5 on the jaw and cheek and gave a further blow on his shoulder.
The defence witnesses had deposed that the appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Kelkar at Akola.
The High Court declined to interfere with the companyviction.
Criminal justice is number to be founded on erroneous answers spelled out by witnesses during evidencecollecting process.
The companyviction was, therefore, unjustified and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellant assails his companyviction under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code IPC , rejecting his defence that he was of unsound mind.
