INDIAN PENAL

CODE
Sudhir Ch. Biswas
vs
The State

Submitted By-
PujitGumber
36/15
Section-A
BA.LLB
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and
assistance from many people and I am extremely fortunate to have got this all
along the completion of my project work. Whatever I have done is only due to
such guidance and assistance and I would not forget to thank them.
I respect and thank Dr. Pushpinder Kaur , for giving me an opportunity to do the
project work on the case Sudhir Ch. Biswas vs The State and providing me with
all support and guidance which made me complete the project on time. I am
extremely grateful to her for providing such a nice support.
I am thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support
and guidance from all Teaching staffs of Department of UILS which helped me
in successfully completing the project work. Also, I would like to extend my
sincere regards to all the non-teaching staff of department UILS for their timely
support.
 INDEX

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

2. CHARGES FRAMED
3. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
4. JUDGEMENT
5. LATEST CASE LAWS
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The village Berkamgachi and the village Birnagar are situated side by
side within the P. S. Ranaghat in Nadia district
2. On 24-12-80 Smtv Gauridasi mother-in-law of the accused Sudhir was
coming to her own village Birnagar via Berkamgachi being accompanied
by her daughter Kalidasi Biswas and her son-in-law Sudhir himself.
3. It would be at about 4.30 p.m. then. While they were passing through the
way near Berkamgachi Deep Tube Well No. 73 , the accused Sudhir
began to assault Gauridasi, his mother-in-law and gave her several
strokes. Kalidasi her daughter tried to intervene but in doing so she too
was severely dealt with by the dagger so much so that she fell down on
the ground.
4. A little girl Rekharani Kirtaniya was standing aside. She raised hue and
cry and hearing her cries neighbouring people flocked to the place. The
incident was thus witnessed by several local people. Rekharani's father
Nimai Kirtaniya was one of them.
5. Nimai Mondal another local was in his house. Hearing the hue and cry he
ran to the spot and found the two injured women lying over there as also
the accused person with his blood stained wearing apparels. Sachin
Mondal another villager, similarly being attracted by the hue and cry
came up to the spot. He saw the dagger lying on the ground and the
accused Sudhir standing over there.
6. Santosh Modak another resident of Berkamgachi was sitting then within
a local shop. Hearing cries he rushed to the spot. He saw Sudhir stabbing
his wife. Budheswar Biswas similarly could see the accused Sudhir
standing with a blood stained dagger with him. Sudhir was red-handed
caught by the local inhabitants. The two injured women were lying on the
ground with blood injuries.
7. The last named witness Budheswar Biswas who was a local man picked
up the injured Kalidasi wife of Sudhir and took her to Ranaghat hospital
where however the lady breathed her last soonafter. The mother-in-law
was also taken to that hospital. Both the injured were examined by the Dr.
K. P. Biswas. The mother-in-law however survived.
8. Four hours after the incident one Kalipada Pal a local resident ran up to
the police station Ranaghat and gave a written ejahar adumbrating all
necessary details connected with the incident. The written complaint was
subsequently treated as F.I.R.
 9. On the self-same night the I.O. S.I. Ruhidas Biswas ( came to the P.O.,
prepared a rough sketch map and examined several witnesses recording
their statements Under Section 161, Cr.P.C1.
10. At the P.O., near the Deep Tube Well No. 73, he seized the blood stained
dagger, some control earth and blood stained earth .
11.On the next day. i.e. on 25-12-80 he seized the blood stained yellow
terilene shirt which was worn by Sudhir .He took the accused in police
custody. On 25-12-80 he went to the local Ranaghat hospital and sent the
dead body of Kalidasi for post-mortem examination.
12. S.I. B. L. Roy Choudhury took up the investigation of the case from the
hands of Ruhidas Biswas. He recorded the statements of several
witnesses Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. including the statement of mother-
in-law Gauridasi. He sent the seized articles for forensic report through
the S.D.J.M. Ranaghat on 17-4-81. Charge sheet of the case was
submitted on 21-4-83 by the subsequent Police Officer Sri Shyamal
Samadar , Sri Samadar collected post-mortem report as also the forensic
report in due course of investigation of the case. Thereafter in due course
Sudhir was committed to the Court of Session.

1
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 CHARGES FRAMED

At the trial two distinct charges were framed as against Sudhir, one
Under Section 302,1.P.C.2 for murdering his wife

302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with

death or 1 [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

and another Under Section 324, I.P.C. for causing hurt to Gauridasi with a
sharp cutting weapon namely the dagger.

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever,

except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means
of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which,
used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any
heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is
deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the
blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.

2
Indian Penal Code, 1860
 ARGUMENTS RAISED

Mr. Jaiswal, learned advocate appearing for Sudhir the appellant in his usual
fairness has submitted that he does not want us to disbelieve the P. Ws. P. Ws.
according to him were rightly believed by the learned trial Court. He has
however, invited our attention to the evidence of the child witness who
disclosed before the Court in her cross-examination that "the accused used to
beg in our mohalla and it sqems to me that he was, an abnormal type of man".
Similar is the evidence of Nimai P.W. 5 who gave out in his cross-examination
that "I saw this accused to beg in our house and also saw this man to roam in
our village in mad condition". Mr. Jaiswal has also drawn our attention to the
order sheet dt. 2-3-81 of the trial Court's record of the S.D.J.M., Ranaghat to
show that the S.D.J.M. concerned could at least for a day mark some
abnormality regarding the behaviour of Sudhir while he was in judicial custody.
Mr. Jaiswal has also invited our attention to the two cases . He has argued that
the quoted evidence has cast a reasonable doubt in our mind as regards one or
more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused and
that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not thus
discharged. We have given our best consideration to the aforesaid contention of
Mr. Jaiswal. Mr. Jaiswal wants to save his client by showering on him the
benefit of Section 84,I.P.C. In our considered opinion insanity to be recognised
as an exception to criminal liability must be such as to disable an accused
person from knowing the nature of the act, when he committed the criminal act.
If at the time of committing the offence the accused knew the nature of the act,
he is guilty. Unsoundness of mind means and implies a state of mind in which
an accused is incapable of knowing that he is doing any wrong or anything
contrary to law. And the burden of proving this is upon the person who takes the
plea. More concentricity or strange behaviour of the accused is not enough to
constitute his unsoundness of mind vide Keshaorao v. State of Maharashtra 3.
Moreover it is only legal insanity that furnishes ground for exemption from
criminal liability. We may point out even at the risk of repetition that in order to
constitute legal insanity the, unsoundness of mind must be such as to make the
offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing an act
contrary to law. It is precisely this state of mind at the time of offence, neither
ante nor post offence which is only material for the purpose of determining
whether the accused was of unsound mind. Insanity in other words must exist at
the time of commission of offence. The view we have taken finds strong support
in the illustrious case of Kalahari . There the prosecution case was that Kalabati
was sleeping along with her husband-appellant. She cried out at night and on the
3
1979 Cri LJ 403 Bombay High Court
morning she was found dead. Accused-appellant in that case took the plea that
he was insane. It was held that the "entire conduct of the accused from the time
he killed his wife up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced was
inconsistent with the fact that he had a fit of insanity when he killed his wife.
The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the
time when the offence was committed". None of the witnesses in our case had
uttered a single word regarding the then abnormal conduct or behaviour or state
of mind of Sudhir at the P.O. On the contrary the evidence on record is that at
the P.O. the accused first tried to assault his mother-in-law and being opposed
by his wife he fell (a prey) upon her and began to stab her with a dagger
repeatedly. Even when the wife fell on the ground he sat upon her waist and did
not stop short of assaulting her again. Mr. Jaiswal has craved by saying that his
client did not try to run away. We however cannot forget that his client was tied
up by the villagers with a pole so much so he could get hardly any opportunity
to flee away from the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution here that the
dagger was picked up by Sudhir on the way and that he suddenly made use of it
like a madman

Mrs. Moitra appearing for the State respondent has rightly argued by saying that
it was a case of cool and calculated murder so much so that Sudhir was carrying
with him a dagger. Mrs. Moitra has reminded us that Sudhir was a beggar and
that the beggar was not expected to carry a dagger with him. Indeed we agree
with Mrs. Moitra that there was a method in the alleged madness of the accused
Sudhir. We have spared much thought over the contention of Mr. Jaiswal and to
our mind it does not appear that the accused Sudhir might have been a mad man
at the time of occurrence. On the contrary our considered view is that the
accused was perfectly sane at the time of occurrence and that h,e committed the
crime in the usual way not being pressurized by any unsoundness or
abnormality of his mind. It is significant to note in this connection that in course
of his examination Under Section 313, Cr.P.C4. as many as 30 questions were
put to Sudhir. Sudhir answered all of them satisfactorily. His answer to the last
question was "on the day of incident I went to perform my work. On returning
home from my work 1 found that my wife was lying on the ground being
murdered, 1 did not murder her." Sudhir cannot be believed. He was evidently
speaking lies. We prefer to believe the villagers who deposed against him at the
trial. In his petition of appeal sent through Dum Dum Central Jail, Sudhir has
stated that at the time of incident he was not drunk that he did not murder his
wife and that he was only trying to control his wife's misbehaviour. We do not
know what was or could have been the "misbehaviour" that his wife did exhibit
before him. One thing, however, is clear namely that the husband Sudhir was

4 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

not justified in taking away her life by striking her chest vehemently with a
dagger leading her to the said catastrophe. The averments made in the "petition
of appeal" are also untrue because they contain no explanation as to why he
assaulted his mother-in-law first.
 JUDGEMENT

Convicted of two offences, one Under Section 302, I.P.C. for murdering his
wife (Kalidasi) with a dagger and another Under Section 324, I.P.C. for causing
hurt to his mother-in-law with the same self dagger and sentenced to R.I. for life
and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the first offence and to R.I. for one year for
the second offence the accused Sudhir Ch. Biswas had come up in appeal before
The High Court, Calcutta.The Judgement given by the High court is as follows:

“In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above we find no good
reason to set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court. In our considered
opinion Sudhir was rightly convicted of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C.
and 9. 324, I.P.C. No argument was advanced before us regarding any
impropriety of the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The appeal should therefore stand dismissed.. In the result, the appeal is
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is
affirmed.”5

5
Chakrabarty, Sudhir Ch. Biswas vs The State 1987 CriLJ 863
 LATEST CASE LAWS

Dharmdev Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 13 November, 20176-

Brahamdev Kumar who happens to be full brother of appellant, Dharmdev

Kumar gave his Fard-e-beyan on 10.07.2014 disclosing therein that his brother,
Dharmdev Kumar is suffering from some sort of mental ailment, as a result of
which, he used to abuse the family members as well as indulged in physical
activity with them and for that, he was to be taken to the doctor and for that, on
the alleged date and time of occurrence, he had procured an auto-rickshaw
whereupon he was to be taken to the doctor. Dharmdev Kumar was directed to
sit inside the auto-rickshaw whereupon, he began to flee. He was apprehended
and was to be taken inside the auto-rickshaw, during midst thereof, took out a
pistol which he possessed on account of having been allotted by the department
being a Police Constable deployed at Special Branch and fired 5-7 rounds
causing injury to auto driver, Rajesh Kumar as well as his companion namely,
Vipul Kumar. Police arrived and apprehended Dharmdev Kumar.

JUDGEMENT-The, the Division Bench of the High Court haD arrived at the
right conclusion that there is no evidence adduced by the accused/Appellant on
record to show that he was suffering from mental illness on the date of the
occurrence to extend the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arvind Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 6 November, 2017

The Case Facts in nutshell are that the appellant/accused was posted as
Constable in police out post Nishatpura a Railway Protection Force (in
short "RPF"). He was allotted 303 bore rifle and about 25 cartridges. It is
alleged that on 11.03.2002 at about 08:30 pm appellant was on duty at
police out post Nishatpura alongwith other staff. Appellant fired a gun
shot on Head Constable M.P. Singh and caused him fatal injury. Hearing
the noise of fire Railway Goods clerk K.B. Singh who was working in
Railway Godown situated near police out post, came out of godown,
seeing him, appellant fired a gun shot on him and caused fatal injury.
RPF Constable Rajendra Kumar Rai tried to stop the appellant, he also
received a gun shot injury fired at him by appellant. Thereafter, appellant
went to the roof of the Railway Running Room and again fired gun shot

6
https://indiankanoon.org
 on Cook Rama Shanker Shatri, Washerman O.P. Malviya, Railway driver
Sataynarayan, Box Boy Raju, Constable Dal Chand, Tej Singh, Chandre
Dev, Ganesh Kumar and Vishnu Prajapati and caused them gun shot
injury. Seeing the incident by the witnesses information was given at
Police Station GRP, Bhopal. SHO GRP R.N. Bararu alongwith Head
Constable Nafeez Hussain and other staff rushed on the spot and tried to
take the appellant under their control and asked him to surrender. Seeing
the GRP staff appellant fired at R.N. Bararu and Nafeez and caused gun
shot injury to them. Thereafter, appellant was taken into custody and his
rifle was seized by the police. In this incident Dal Chand, Sataynarayan,
M.P. Singh and K.B. Singh died and Vishnu Prajapati, Tej Singh,

JUDGEMENT-An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an

act under Section 847 IPC is to prove legal insanity and not medical
insanity. Expression "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined
in IPCand it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the
term "insanity" carries different meanings in different contexts and
describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is
suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and
his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments
from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his
emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at
short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was
abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer, are not sufficient to attract
the application of Section 84of IPC

77
Indian Penal Code, 1860
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Prof S N Misra, Indian Penal Code

2. Universal, The Indian Penal Code With State Amendments
3. Dr. K.I. Vibhute, P.S.A. Pillai's Criminal Law

Web Sources-

1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. https://www.casemine.com