LAW OF CRIMES

TOPIC : TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINAGRDI V/S STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA
GROUP : H

MEMBERS : MARIYAH ALAM ( 2)

KHUSHI JAIN (13)

SONIYA MULCHANDANI (18)

FARHAN MEMON ( 38 )

ZOYA SHEIKH (39)

CASE TITLE TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINGARDI V/S STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA

CITATION 819 OF 1987

CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

BENCH JUSTICE P.V TIPNIS ,

JUSTICE M.S VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT DATE 30TH JULY 1990

COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(CRIMINAL APPEAL )
 EXPLANATION OF THE CASE

➢ FACTS

 It was the prosecution story itself that the deceased as well as the
sister of the accused were in the market since before 1.30 noon.

 At about 1.30 the sister had gone to police station to complain about
the deceased and had come back with the police constable when
suddenly the accused attacked the deceased and beheaded him.

 The conduct of the accused in attacking the victim in the presence of

several persons who could have watched him committing the offence
was one of the pointers to his mental condition.

The second important thing was that after beheading the deceased,
he picked up the head and threw it in the air twice or thrice.

 This was certainly not a conduct of a normal human being Much less
so was the conduct of the appellant in bringing the head back near the
dead body and chopping it so much so that the brain matter fell out.

 The accused had not stopped even at that time. After breaking the
head, he again picked it up and blew it up in the air.
 Having done all this if he was sane he would have certainly made an
attempt to run away from the place.

 The appellant-accused did not do so, he stood or sat quietly near the
scene of offence till he was taken to the police station by the police.

 He did not offer any resistance to the police nor is he said to have
exhibited any recalcitrance towards the police authorities.

 All these circumstances attending the act of the alleged crime could
be a pointer to the insane mental condition of the accused.

 Here in the present case, it is not merely the nature of the act but the
circumstances preceding and subsequent to the incident of offence do
warrant a conclusion that the appellant has sufficiently discharged the
burden of proof cast upon him by law to prove that he was falling within
the four corners of the ambit of S.84 of the Penal Code.
➢ ISSUES

1. . This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th April, 1987

under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi (
Mr. S.R.Ghanvatkar ) had convicted the appellant for an offence
punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to duffer imprisonment for life.

2. The name of the victim was Ajappa Fakirappa Dasapanawar. The

appellant was also convicted of offences punishable under S.353
and 332 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to police
constable Desai who was on duty on the scene of offence at the
relevant point of time.

3. For the first mentioned offence, the appellant was sentenced to

suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to
suffer R.I. for one month.

4. For the latter mentioned offence, the appellant was sentenced to

suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to
suffer R.I. for three months. The substantive sentences were
orders to run concurrently.
➢ ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT

 The appellant preferred a jail appeal contending that. Sessions

Judge had failed to appreciate and apply properly the provisions
contained in S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code to the facts of the case
and further, that he had erred in appreciating the evidence on
record which was in favour of the appellant.

 The learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the ruling in
Ratan Lal v. State of M.P., and submitted that when the appellant
was deprived of the opportunity right from the initial stage to
establish his insanity at the relevant point of time.

 Sessions Judge should have appreciated that fact in its due

perspective and should have held that on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellant had succeeded in proving his
defence in its totality by rebutting the ordinary presumption of
sanity which becomes available to the prosecution in usual cases
of this type.

 He submitted that the circumstances preceding the incident of

offence, attending the incident of offence as well as the
subsequent circumstances prove amply enough, that the
appellant had rebutted the presumption of sanity and that the
evidence on record did prove to the satisfaction of the Court his
defence of insanity at the relevant point of time.

 He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed and the

conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant be set aside
and that the appellant be set at liberty.
 ➢ ARGUMENTS BY THE RESONDENT

 Mrs. Rao, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the State, relied upon several rulings on the point of presumption of
sanity, the rebuttal thereof and contended that in the circumstances of
the case, the very fact that the appellant had attacked a person against
whom he had had some grudge, itself indicated that the act of the
appellant in committing the murder in question was motivated, a
circumstance which could prove that he was not insane at the relevant
point of time.

 According to her, the act of the accused was an act of cold-blooded

murder in broad day-light in a most cruel manner and, therefore, the
appellant was a rightly convicted by the Sessions Judge.

 She prayed that the conviction and the sentences awarded to the
appellant be confirmed
 ➢ JUDGEMENT

 The appeal in question pertains to a conviction under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellant, along with additional
convictions under Sections 353 and 332 IPC .

 The incident involved the murder of Ajappa Fakirappa Dasapanawar

and causing hurt to police constable Desai .

 The defence argued that the appellant was insane at the time of the
crime and therefore not liable under Section 84 of the IPC .

 The burden of proving the defence of insanity lay upon the appellant

 The prosecution contended that the act, characterized by a motive

and methodical execution, did not align with the actions of an insane
person .

 Reference was made to legal precedents emphasizing the

presumption of sanity unless proven otherwise .

 These cases established that the accused must demonstrate their

mental state at the time of the offence to avail themselves of Section 84
 However, the defence presented compelling evidence through
witnesses, notably the appellant's brother and a village medical
practitioner .

 They testified to the appellant's deteriorating mental state following

a traumatic event - the murder of his brother by the deceased five years
prior .

 The appellant exhibited symptoms of insanity, including delusions

about a tiger attacking him, sleep disturbances, and erratic behavior
testimony shed light on the appellant's mental condition leading up to,
during, and after the incident .

 The brother's account of the appellant's delusions and the

practitioner's observations corroborated the claim of insanity .

 Despite skepticism about the practitioner's credibility, his testimony,

when considered alongside other evidence, reinforced the assertion
that the appellant's mental faculties were compromised . Ultimately,
the court found merit in the defence's argument .

 Given the evidence presented, the appellant's state of mind fell This
within the purview of Section 84 IPC
  The court concluded that the appellant, due to his unsoundness of
mind, was incapable of comprehending the nature of his actions or
their wrongfulness, absolving him of criminal liability . Therefore, the
appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

 The court directed his immediate release, unless detained for reasons
unrelated to this case .

 This verdict underscores the importance of considering mental health

issues in criminal proceedings and upholding legal principles that
safeguard the rights of individuals with mental illness.

In conclusion, the appellant's successful plea of

insanity, supported by compelling evidence,
resulted in his acquittal highlighting the
nuances of legal defences concerning mental
health in criminal law.