Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has set aside the conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of murdering his father and grandmother, holding that the accused was legally insane at the time of the incident. Citing the statutory protection under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (equivalent to Section 84 IPC), the Court concluded that the accused was incapable of understanding the nature of his actions. The Court recorded: "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." The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

On 13 April 2021 at approximately 9:00 PM, the appellant was sleeping in a locked room at his family residence in Village Chandana, Dhamtari District, Chhattisgarh. According to the complainant, Rekha Verma (PW2), who is the appellant’s mother, the room was locked from the outside due to the appellant's mental instability. Later that night, the appellant requested water. When his mother did not open the door out of fear, his father, Pannalal Verma (D1), opened it. Upon being questioned, the appellant allegedly responded, "I am Hanuman ji, Bajrang Bali, Durga" and began pushing his mother before getting into an altercation with D1 and his grandmother Triveni Verma (D2).

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Retirement Of Colour-Blind Driver | Says Employer Must Reasonably Accommodate Disability Acquired During Service

By the time the complainant returned with neighbours, the door had been locked from the inside. Upon reopening it, D1 and D2 were found dead in a pool of blood. Based on this, a Dehati Nalishi was filed and subsequently FIR No. 104/2021 under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

The prosecution presented 15 witnesses during trial. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 (two counts) and 323 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines.

The appellant, through senior counsel, argued that he was legally insane at the time of the incident. The defence pointed to multiple testimonies including PW1 (cousin), PW2 (mother), PW3, PW4 and PW5, all of whom attested that the appellant had sustained head injuries during the COVID-19 lockdown period and had since been under psychiatric treatment by Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla at a mental health facility in Raipur.

PW2 stated during the trial and in the Merg Intimation (Ex. P4 & Ex. P5) that the appellant’s mental condition had been unstable for over a year and that he had to be kept locked in a room. The complainant also stated that on the very day of the incident, her husband (D1) had brought the appellant back home after a doctor’s visit.

The Investigating Officer, PW15 Santosh Sahu, admitted in cross-examination that he neither verified the psychiatric treatment records nor obtained any certificates or testimonies from the treating psychiatrist. He also confirmed that he did not constitute a medical board to examine the appellant’s mental state at the time of the incident.

Despite such evidence, the Trial Court relied only on the findings of an inquiry under Section 328 CrPC which concluded that the accused was fit to stand trial. It convicted the appellant without examining whether he was mentally fit at the time of the crime.

The appeal brought before the High Court challenged this approach and sought relief under Section 22 of the BNS, which protects individuals who, by reason of unsoundness of mind, are incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their acts.

The Division Bench extensively analysed the testimonies and statutory principles applicable to legal insanity.

The Court noted that "the complainant (PW2) has categorically stated in both her Merg intimation (Ex. P4/P5) and Court testimony that the appellant had sustained head injuries after falling from a roof during the COVID-19 lockdown and was under psychiatric treatment at Raipur." It added that multiple witnesses had corroborated this.

It recorded that the Investigating Officer "did not seize any document related to the psychiatric treatment of accused from his family members" and "did not obtain any investigation report from Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla to establish the fact whether the accused was mentally stable on the date of the incident or not."

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66, the Court quoted: "Where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case."

It further cited Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563: "The accused may rebut [the presumption of sanity] 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."

The Bench noted that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden after the defence had produced substantial evidence of mental illness. "The burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut the same," the Court stated.

The Court also stated that "there was no known or proven motive for the appellant to kill his own father (D1) and grandmother (D2)." It observed: "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."

Quoting Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495, the Court reiterated: "The accused is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity... Section 84 IPC will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law."

It concluded: "In the present case, this Court finds that the consistent testimony of family members and witnesses regarding the appellant’s mental condition; the absence of any motive to kill his own father and grandmother; the failure of the prosecution to disprove the plea of insanity or to investigate it properly; and the behavior exhibited by the appellant during the incident, together create a strong presumption of legal insanity, warranting the protection of Section 22 of BNS, 2023."

The Court held that "the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC is not sustainable." It set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15 February 2024 issued by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Case No. 37/2021.

The Court stated: "The criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant-Mahesh Kumar Verma is allowed and his conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the said charges levelled against him."

It further ordered: "He is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case."

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Raps School’s Negligence | Fines ₹1 Lakh For Wrong Exam Form And Misleading Transfer Certificate | Orders CBSE To Issue Fresh Marksheet

In compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC, the Court directed: "The accused-appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

The Court also placed on record its appreciation for Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha, who appeared as amicus curiae, stating: "We record our gratitude for his professional service and commendable contribution to the cause of justice."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Aditi Singhvi and Mr. Shasvut Yechuri, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:37461-DB
Case Number: CRA No. 1229 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru