Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"High Court's Reversal of Acquittal 'Perverse,' Emphasizes Importance of Section 84 IPC in Issues of Insanity"- SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has castigated the High Court for reversing the acquittal of an appellant-accused who had initially been found not guilty by the Trial Court on the grounds of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Supreme Court underscored the difference between legal and medical insanity, quoting from its previous decisions: "An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity."

The Supreme Court painstakingly reviewed evidence provided by both the defense and the prosecution, including medical records and testimonies. The appellant-accused had been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder and was under medication for psychiatric ailments. "The abnormal/insane behaviour of the appellant-accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter is worth notice," the judgment read.

Drawing on legal precedents, the Supreme Court reemphasized the importance of the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution. "If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal," the judgment highlighted.

Supreme Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court's reversal of the appellant-accused’s acquittal by stating, "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."

Date of Decision: 13 September 2023

RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) VS STATE OF SIKKIM                                    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/13-Sep-2023_RUPESH_MANGER_VS_STATE_SIKKIM.pdf"]

Latest Legal News