RUPESH MANGER (THAPA)versusSTATE OF SIKKIM

                 [2023] 12 S.C.R. 578 : 2023 INSC 826



                            CASE DETAILS

                     RUPESH MANGER (THAPA)
                                     v.
                          STATE OF SIKKIM
               (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2022)
                         SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
 [J. B. PARDIWALA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
                             HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: High Court reversed the order of acquittal
of the trial Court and convicted appellant-accused u/s.302 IPC, whether
the case of the appellant-accused falls within the exception u/s. 84 of IPC
or not.
     Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-accused had attacked the victim-
deceased with sharp-edged weapon causing his death – Appellant
pleaded insanity:
      Held: During preliminary examination, CW-1-doctor categorically
deposed that going by the case history of the accused prepared by the
Hospital, appellant had earlier been treated for acute and transient
psychotic disorder – As per the opinion of this witness, the appellant-
accused seemed to have major depressive disorder with psychotic feature
– On examination, the appellant-accused was found to have partially
impaired judgment due to perceptive auditory hallucinations – The
medicines prescribed were for the accused’s psychiatric ailments and the
ailment was relapse able and there is every chance of attack anytime – Apart
from the above medical evidence, the abnormal/insane behaviour of the
appellant-accused at the time of the assault – In her cross-examination,
PW-13 admits that accused-appellant even told her that he did not know
as to what he had done to his grandfather/deceased – The other villagers
who reached at the spot soon after the incident have stated that when they
arrived at the spot the appellant-accused was present and was not trying
to flee from there – This behaviour of the appellant-accused was not of
a normal person – Also, when the appellant-accused was arrested, PW-
                                     578
        RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) v. STATE OF SIKKIM                     579


14 medically examined him and found that he appeared to be clinically
under the influence of some psychotropic substance – It is also to be seen
that after the appellant-accused attacked the deceased by a sharp-edged
weapon which was later snatched by PW-1, he was trying to take out the
windpipe from the neck of the deceased which was already cut – This
action of the appellant-accused was weird and abnormal – This is clearly
indicative of the fact that he was suffering from insanity at the time of
incident – Therefore, the High Court erred in setting aside the judgment
of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. [Paras 16, 17 and 18]
     Appeal – Appellate Court – Reversal of acquittal:
      Held: It is settled that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed
by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking
a different view on reappreciation of evidence – If the conclusion of the
Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible
on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb
the fi ndings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the
accused. [Para 24]
     Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84 – Legal insanity and medical insanity –
discussed.
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XXV – discussed.

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

     Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [1964] 7 SCR
361; Prakash Nayi Alias Sen v. State of Goa (2023) 5 SCC 673 – relied
on.

      State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan (2011) 8 SCC 65 : [2011] 7 SCR
1099; Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 718 :
[2018] 7 SCR 767; Ratan Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1970) 3 SCC
533 : [1971] 3 SCR 251; Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11
SCC 495 : [2011] 1 SCR 133; Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P. (2008) 16
SCC 109 : [2008] 12 SCR 949; Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC
66 : [2007] 7 SCR 917 – referred to.
580         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 12 S.C.R.



       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
2069-2070 of 2022.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 of
the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2020.
      Appearances:
    A. Sirajudden, Sr. Adv., Tilak Raj Pasi, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi,
Advs. for the Appellant.
     Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Nishi Sangtani,
Ms. Sugandh Rathore, Naman Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
       JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                             JUDGMENT
      PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
      1. These appeals would call in question the legality and validity of
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 and
05.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal
Appeal No. 08 of 2020 whereby the High Court has reversed the order of
acquittal of the Trial Court dated 30.10.2018 and convicted the appellant-
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ( for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for life.
      2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant-accused
committed murder of his grandfather Krishna Bahadur Rai (hereinafter
called ‘deceased’). An FIR was lodged to the said effect by Reeta Rai
(PW-1), daughter of the deceased informing the police that her father
(deceased) aged 81 years who was living with her had been murdered with
a sharp-edged weapon (Patang).
      3. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted
against the appellant-accused for committing offence under Section 302 of
IPC and, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses
to prove its case. However, even before the commencement of trial the
        RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) v. STATE OF SIKKIM                        581
                  [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

appellant-accused raised a plea of insanity. Thereafter, he was referred to
the Psychiatric Unit of the STNM Hospital, Gangtok for examination of his
mental state which was conducted by Dr. Netra Thapa (CW-1), Consultant
Neuro Psychiatrist. Although, the defence of insanity has not been expressly
pleaded by the appellant-accused in his examination under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein he would mainly claim
ignorance about the occurrence of the incident; at the same time, denying
that he had attacked his grand father (deceased).
      4. The Trial Court considered the matter within the ambit of Section
84 of IPC and on the basis of material on record concluded that the
appellant-accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts by
reason of unsoundness of mind and it is highly probable that he was
unaware of what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The
Trial Court, thus, acquitted the appellant-accused against which the State
of Sikkim preferred an appeal which stands allowed by the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 and
05.09.2022 respectively.
      5. Mr. A. Sirajudden learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant-accused at the very outset submitted that the judgment
of acquittal can be reversed by the appellate court only when there is
perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence.
He further submitted that the presumption of innocence of the accused
is strengthened by the fact of acquittal of the accused under the criminal
jurisprudence and it is a well settled law that if two views are possible
on the evidence adduced, in that case, the one favourable to the accused,
may be adopted by the court. In support of his submissions, he placed
reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan
vs. Abdul Mannan1.
      6. Learned senior counsel next submitted that the appellant-accused
was a person of unsound mind within the ambit of Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) at the time of the incident. The fact of lunacy of
a person which prevented him from knowing the nature of his act must be
considered from his past, present and future conduct. The only criteria to


1   (2011) 8 SCC 65
582            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 12 S.C.R.


prove such lunacy is “reasonable doubt” and this criterion is well approved
by this Court in the case of Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra2.
     7. Per contra, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, learned counsel for
the respondent/State submitted that the High Court after careful
examination of the medical records of the appellant-accused and other
material placed on record rightly came to the conclusion that the case
of the appellant-accused did not fall within the exception created by
Section 84 of IPC.
     8. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused
as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State and having meticulously
perused the material placed on record, the only question that falls for our
consideration is, whether the case of the appellant-accused falls within the
exception under Section 84 of IPC or not.
     9. The fact that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased
have been found established concurrently by the Trial Court as well as the
High Court, therefore, we would discuss the evidence in this regard very
briefly.
     10. PW-1 (Reeta Rai) is the daughter of the deceased and the aunt of
the appellant-accused as well. She lodged the FIR and has categorically
deposed that the deceased used to stay in her house. The deceased had
gone to celebrate Dussehra in the house of her elder sister and returned to
her house at village Rolep on 15.10.2016 along with the appellant-accused.
Around 10.00 a.m. she had gone to a nearby water stream for washing the
household utensils and heard someone saying ‘aaya aaya’ and also heard
some strange sound such as ‘chyak chyak’. She rushed back to her house
and saw the appellant-accused aiming the sharp-edged weapon towards the
deceased. After struggling with the accused she snatched the weapon from
him but saw the deceased with pool of blood all over his face and neck.
The appellant-accused had already assaulted her father. She would further
depose that after snatching the weapon she hid it under some rod materials
but when she looked back, she again saw the accused with his hand on the
neck of the deceased trying to take out the windpipe from the neck of the


2     (2018) 7 SCC 718
        RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) v. STATE OF SIKKIM                          583
                 [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

deceased which was already cut. She separated the appellant-accused from
the deceased.
      11. PW-13 (Geeta Chettri) had arrived at the place of occurrence on
hearing PW-1’s scream. When she reached the house of the deceased, she
saw the appellant-accused pulling the deceased by his neck. The statements
of both the above witnesses have not been demolished or shaken during the
cross-examination.
     12. PW-14 (Dr. Siddhant Basnett) examined the deceased when he was
brought dead to the Singtam PHC who found the following visible injuries
on the body of the deceased:
     (a) laceration of throat (slit throat) measuring 05 x 06 x 05 cms;
     (b) laceration-lateral to the lateral canthus of right eye 0.5 x 2 cms;
     (c) laceration of the right side of chin 0.5 x 7 cms;
     (d) laceration on the right shoulder 04 x 05 cms.
     13. PW-15 (Dr. O.T. Lepcha) conducted the autopsy and found the
following ante mortem injuries in his report (Exhibit-11):
     (a) Linear shaped injury (7.5 x 0.5 cms) placed over the right-side
         face 5 cm below and lateral to the right eye;
     (b) Spindle shaped incised injury (3 x 0.5 cms) placed along injury
         No. (a) above;
     (c) Spindle shaped incised injury (7 x 0.8 x muscle) over the right
         mandible
     (d) Chop injury (10 x 3 cms) placed just above the thyroid cartilage
         with bevelled margin over the superior margin ( 7 x 1 cms). The
         injury involved the skin, muscle, the jugular and carotid vessels
         of both the sides and the trachea ( chopped; and
     (e) Chop wound (7 x 3 cms) placed over the right upper end of the
         shoulder/arm.
     14. Basing upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-13 and the medical
evidence adduced, it is fully proved that the appellant-accused had attacked
the deceased with sharp-edged weapon causing his death.
584          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 12 S.C.R.


      ISSUE OF INSANITY
      15. Right since the inception, the appellant-accused has set up the plea
of insanity and has examined his mother Gita Manger (Rana) (DW-1) in
support of his plea. To consider this plea we would hereinafter discuss the
evidence available on the record.
       16. PW-2 (Ajoy Rai), cousin of the appellant-accused admitted during
his cross-examination that the appellant-accused was studying in Dehradun
and that he was brought back to Sikkim as he was suffering from mental
illness. PW-1 also admits this fact. However, she did not know whether
the appellant-accused had been brought back from Dehradun to Sikkim on
account of his mental illness. PW-7 (Bikash Rai) and PW-8 (Dal Bahadur
Rai) also admit that they had heard about the appellant-accused being
brought back to Sikkim due to some sickness. DW-1 (mother of the accused)
speaks about her son’s mental illness. According to this witness, in the year
2015, one of his friends telephoned her that the appellant-accused had fallen
ill, and he is fighting with his friends. He was, accordingly, brought back
to Sikkim. He was taken to some quakes/spiritual healers for treatment as
also to Lama/Priest but to no avail. Thereafter he was taken to the Central
Referral (Manipal) Hospital for his treatment by a psychiatrist. After a week
in the hospital, he was brought back, and he was advised to continuously
take medicines for keeping his mental status healthy. This evidence finds
corroboration from the evidence of CW-1 (Dr. Netra Thapa) who was
initially examined by the Trial Court on 04.05.2017. During preliminary
examination, this witness categorically deposed that going by the case history
of the accused prepared by the Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital, Tadong
he had earlier been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder w.e.f.
05.10.2015 to 10.10.2015. As per the opinion of this witness, the appellant-
accused seemed to have major depressive disorder with psychotic feature.
On examination, the appellant-accused was found to have partially impaired
judgment due to perceptive auditory hallucinations. When this witness again
examined before the Trial Court on 11.09.2017 and was subjected to cross-
examination he proved the discharge summary of the appellant-accused
issued by the Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital. He admitted that the
medicines prescribed therein were for the accused’s psychiatric ailments
and the ailment was relapseable and there is every chance of attack anytime.
         RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) v. STATE OF SIKKIM                            585
                  [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

      17. Apart from the above medical evidence, the abnormal/insane
behaviour of the appellant-accused at the time of the assault and
immediately thereafter is worth notice. Star witnesses of the prosecution
namely, PW-1 (Reeta Rai) would state that the appellant-accused was fond
of the deceased and he loved the deceased a lot. Similarly, the evidence
of PW-13 would show that when she was leaving the spot, the appellant-
accused came near her and asked what I have done to my grandfather. In
her cross-examination, she admits that accused- appellant even told her that
he did not know as to what he had done to his grandfather/deceased. The
other villagers who reached at the spot soon after the incident have stated
that when they arrived at the spot the appellant-accused was present and
was not trying to flee from there. This behaviour of the appellant-accused
was not of a normal person.
      18. When the appellant-accused was arrested, PW-14 medically
examined him and found that he appeared to be clinically under the influence
of some psychotropic substance. This witness also admitted that in the
discharge summary of the appellant-accused (Exhibit-D), he was prescribed
the tablet Lorazepam which is a psychotropic substance apart from being
an anxiolytic agent. It is also to be seen that after the appellant-accused
attacked the deceased by a sharp-edged weapon which was later snatched by
PW-1, he was trying to take out the windpipe from the neck of the deceased
which was already cut. This action of the appellant-accused was weird and
abnormal. This is clearly indicative of the fact that he was suffering from
insanity at the time of incident.
      19. Section 84 of the IPC provides that:
      “84. Act of a person of unsound mind—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.”
      20. It is settled that the standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity
is only ‘reasonable doubt’. For this, we may profitably refer to a judgment
of this Court in “Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat” 3


3   (1964) 7 SCR 361
586           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 12 S.C.R.


wherein, referring to Section 84 of IPC and the rule of evidence as contained
in Sections 4, 101 and 105 of the Evidence Act this Court held thus:
      “It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused
      is 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 Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This
      general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution.
      But, as Section 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 Section 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 Section 105 of the Evidence
      Act, read with the definition of “shall presume” in Section 4 thereof,
      the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved
      unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that said
      circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent
      man ought, under 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 Section 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
        RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) v. STATE OF SIKKIM                          587
                  [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

     in s. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable
     doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event 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…
     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 Section
     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 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.”
    21. The above proposition has been reiterated by this Court in Devidas
Loka Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra4 and Ratan Lal vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh5
      22. In Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand6, Hari Singh Gond
vs. Stat eof M.P.7 and Bapu vs. State of Rajasthan8 this Court has held that
an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84


4   (2018) 7 SCC 718
5   (1970) 3 SCC 533
6   (2011) 11 SCC 495
7   (2008) 16 SCC 109
8   (2007) 8 SCC 66
588            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 12 S.C.R.


of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Since the term
insanity or unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Penal Code, it
carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees
of mental disorder. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and
medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with
medical insanity.
      23. In a recent judgment of this Court in Prakash Nayi Alias Sen
vs. State of Goa 9 after reiterating the above principles it is held that the
procedure prescribed in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 clearly indicates that there cannot be an acquittal on the ground of
unsoundness of mind unless the act is actually done. The whole idea is to
facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his
reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability.
The role of the court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice.
This Court held in para 17 thus:
       “17. Having noted the scope and ambit of Chapter XXV CrPC,
       including the provisions incorporated by way of amendments in the
       year 2009, one has to take into account the fact that the court has a
       larger role to play while considering the case under Section 84 IPC. If
       a friendly approach is required to be followed during the trial, when
       adequate powers have been conferred upon the court to even discharge
       an accused on the ground of a n unsound mind, the same reasoning will
       have to be applied with much force when it comes to Section 84 IPC.”
      24. In addition to the above, it is significant to note that the present is
a case where the appellant-accused was acquitted by the Trial Court and the
High Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal upon appeal preferred
by the State.
     It is settled that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the
Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different
view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is
plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of
evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and


9     (2023) 5 SCC 673
         RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) v. STATE OF SIKKIM                          589
                    [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

substitute its own findings to convict the accused. See State of Rajasthan
vs. Abdul Mannan (supra).
     25. In the case at hand, the High Court had reversed the finding of
acquittal and convicted the appellant mainly on reappreciation of evidence
by holding that the Trial Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 84
of IPC, without even recording a finding that the Trial Court’s finding is
perverse.
      26. In the light of the evidence discussed by the Trial Court including
the medical evidence about the mental illness of the appellant-accused and
his abnormal behaviour at the time of occurrence, it does not appear that the
view taken by the Trial Court was perverse or that it was based on without
any evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court erred in
setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.
     27. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment impugned dated 24.08.2022
and the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the High Court and affirm the
judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court. We,
accordingly, allow the appeals and acquit the appellant-accused of the charge
under Section 302 IPC. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other case.


Headnotes prepared by:                                          Appeals allowed.
Ankit Gyan