Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Man Accused In Double Murder Case Citing Insanity
The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the conviction of a 25-year-old man who had been found guilty of murdering his father and grandmother, granting him the benefit of the defence of insanity.
The case concerned a brutal and sudden attack in which the appellant fatally assaulted his father and grandmother. According to the record, at the time of the incident, the appellant had been proclaiming phrases such as “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga”.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “The sudden, unprovoked and brutal nature of the attack on close family members, coupled with the statements made by the appellant like “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga,” and his erratic behavior, align with classic signs of a psychotic episode typically found in cases of mental disorder involving delusions or hallucinations. Thus, the provisions of 22 of the BNS (Section 84 IPC) will come to the rescue of the appellant, as he was not knowing that what he was doing was wrong or the same is contrary to law. In order to ascertain the same, the imperative circumstances and the behavior preceding, attending and following the crime are the main consideration. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC is not sustainable.”
The Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302 IPC (punishment for murder) and Section 323 IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), which also included a fine of ₹100 on each count.
Background
The appellant had argued in his appeal that he suffered head injuries after a fall from the terrace during the COVID-19 period and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment. He claimed that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence, which prevented him from comprehending the nature of his actions. On this basis, he contended that his case fell within the ambit of the insanity defence under Section 84 IPC/Section 22 BNS. He further argued that the prosecution had failed to properly examine his mental state, that no psychiatric evaluation at the relevant time had been conducted, and that his past, present, and future conduct—indicating mental illness—had not been considered.
The prosecution opposed the appeal, asserting that the trial court had duly considered the medical records and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Section 84 IPC.
Finding
The Bench examined the Merg Intimation lodged by the appellant’s mother—the complainant—where she explicitly described her son as a mental patient whose psychological state had been deteriorating over the past year, for which he was receiving treatment at a mental hospital. The statements of several witnesses also confirmed that the appellant had a history of psychiatric illness.
The Court noted that the investigating officer made no effort to gather or verify the appellant’s medical records from the treating psychiatrist, nor was a medical board constituted to assess his mental state at the time of the offence. It also took note of evidence showing that the appellant had been locked in a room out of fear of violent or unpredictable behaviour another indicator of his mental condition.
The Court added, “we are of the view that this is a case of more than a reasonable doubt about the insanity or unsoundness of mind of the appellant and as such the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Even the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of accused/appellant beyond the reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution itself has negated the theory by their own evidence on record. Hence the conviction under Section 302 & 323 of IPC deserve to be set aside.”
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed.
Cause Title: Mahesh Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh, [2025:CGHC:37461-DB]
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha, Advocates Aditi Singhvi and Shasvut Yechuri
Respondent: Advocate shashank thakur