Supreme Court: Belated Claims of Juvenility and Insanity Undermine Defence’s Case

Must Read

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Follow us

On August 19th, a 3 Judge Bench of SC dismissed an appeal filed by Mohd. Anwar for a reappraisal of evidence. He was on trial convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (Robbery) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the lower courts. The Appellant had pleaded that he was a minor and mentally infirm at the time of the alleged crime.

Background

In 2001, the accused parties allegedly extorted the complainant of thirty thousand rupees, assaulted him and contemplated his murder. On 29.04.2020, the Trial Court held all three accused guilty of robbery with an attempt to cause grievous hurt and sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397/34 of IPC, 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392/34 of IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The High Court later dropped the charges of robbery with grievous hurt or attempt to murder against co-accused Mohd Anwar in an appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 29.04.2020. However, the High Court convicted and sentenced him under Section 394 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. He filed an appeal in the Supreme Court who upheld the Judgment dated 22.02.2010 of the High Court of Delhi.

Arguments by the Appellant

The Counsel for the Appellant raised an argument of juvenility and insanity. The same was even raised in the High Court. They claimed that Mohd. Anwar was merely 15 years at the time of occurrence and was undergoing treatment for a mental disorder at a government hospital. A copy of an OPD card and the testimony of the appellant’s mother who stated that he was often chained at home to prevent harm to himself and others confirmed the same.

Arguments of the State

The Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, maintained that the belated defences of juvenility and insanity were an afterthought. The High Court had already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence from 7 to 2 years.

Court’s Observations

A Bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant dealt with the Appeal. The Bench made the following observations:

  1. Pleas of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought to be thoroughly raised during the trial itself. Belated claims not only prevent proper production and appreciation of evidence, but they also undermine the genuineness of the defence’s case.
  2. As noted by the High Court, the Appellant presented no evidence in the form of a birth certificate, school record or medical test. Further, no expert examination was sought by the Appellant. Instead, the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC shows that the Appellant was above 18 years around the time of the incident.
  3. The plea of mental disorder too remains unsubstantiated. No deposition made by any witness, nor the Appellant himself claim any such impairment during his Section 313 CrPC statement shrouds the defence in ambiguity.
  4. To successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the Accused must show by a preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. Further, it must be profoundly established that the accused was afflicted by such disability, particularly at the time of the crime and that but for such impairment, the crime would not have been so committed.

Court’s Decision

The Bench held that the Appellant was unable to establish juvenility or insanity and dismissed the Appeal. Further, the Court directed the State to take the Appellant into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -