Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
1 CRA-4946-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4946 of 2021
SANTOSH SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Akanksha Singh - Advocate along with Shri Sandeep Kumar Sen - counsel for
the appellant
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State
Heard on - 25/09/2025
Pronounced on -25/03/2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari
The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the judgment dated 14/07/2021 passed by Fourth Sessions Judge District
Sidhi in S.T.No 168/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC(two counts) and sentenced to
undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that
o n 13.10.2017 at about 7:55 p.m , on the information given by Smt.
Chandrawati Sahu, wife of Mahesh Sahu, a Dehati Nalishi and Merg
Intimation were registered as Merg No. 0/2017 under Section 174 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. As per information, on the same day at about
6:00 p.m. , Smt. Sushila Sahu, wife of the accused (appellant), came to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
2 CRA-4946-2021
house of the informant and informed that earlier at about 5:00 p.m. , she had
left her husband (appellant), her father-in-law Dulare Sahu and her daughter
Rajkumari Sahu at home while she went to bring grass for the cattle. When
she returned at about 6:00 p.m. , she found her father-in-law and daughter
lying dead in the house and the appellant was moving from one place to
another by muttering something. After registration of merg intimation, the
police initiated merg inquiry, recovered the dead bodies, prepared the spot
map and sent the bodies for post-mortem. On the basis of merg inquiry, FIR
in Crime No. 438/2017 under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the
appellant at Police Station Churhat, District Sidhi . After registration of FIR,
the police commenced investigation, prepared the naksha panchnama,
recorded the statements of Smt. Chandrawati Sahu and Smt. Sushila Sahu,
seized blood-stained soil from the spot, arrested the appellant, and recorded
his memorandum statement. At his instance, the alleged deadly weapon
“Vasoola” was recovered. The post-mortem report was also obtained. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class (JMFC) alleging that the appellant had committed the
murder of his father and his daughter by inflicting multiple injuries on
various parts of their bodies with a sharp-edged weapon. The learned JMFC,
after perusing the charge-sheet, committed the case to the Court of Sessions
for trial. Thereafter, the case was troubled to 4th Additional Sessions Judge .
The learned Trial Court, by order dated 14/07/2021 framed charges against
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (two
counts). The appellant abjured his guilt, denied the charges, and wished to
face trial.
3. Prior to framing of charges, an objection was raised on behalf of the
appellant stating that he is not mentally stable and, therefore, was unable to
properly defend himself.
4. Considering the said objection, the Trial Court called for a medical
report from the District Medical Officer. The District Medical Officer
submitted a report opining that the mental condition of the appellant is not
stable. Thereafter, the Trial Court sought a further report from the Gwalior
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
3 CRA-4946-2021
Mental Asylum. A panel of doctors of said institution submitted their report
o n 10.08.2019 , opining that the mental condition of the appellant is stable
and he is capable for defending himself. The learned Trial Court, being
satisfied that the appellant is mentally fit to defend himself, proceeded to
frame charges against him under Section 302 of the IPC (two counts) .The
appellant denied the charges and pleaded to be tried.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 16
witnesses, marked as PW-1 to PW-16 , and also produced documentary
evidence marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-13 .
6. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he is an innocent person
and has not committed any offence. He further stated that he has been falsely
implicated by his neighbours due to a property dispute. The appellant also
stated that he is not mentally fit and the incident occurred due to instability
of mind or mental disorder. In support of his defence, the appellant produced
documentary evidence marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-5 and also examined
DW-1 and DW-2 as defence witnesses. The learned Trial Court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 14.07.2021 , after appreciating the material
available on record, held the appellant guilty of committing the murder of his
father and his daughter and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 of
the IPC (two counts) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
7. Against the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred
before this Court. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on
the grounds that at the time of the incident he was not mentally fit and the
Trial Court without properly considering this aspect passed the impugned
judgment. It is further contended that the Trial Court did not properly
appreciate the material evidence available on record. There is no direct
evidence against the appellant and the prosecution has failed to establish a
complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant with the
commission of the offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal filed by
the appellant deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
4 CRA-4946-2021
sentence deserve to be set-aside.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mental condition of
the appellant was not fit and he has been suffering from mental illness since
the year 2007. It is contended that DW-2 Dr.Sanjay Mishra , who initially
treated the appellant, stated in his deposition before the Trial Court that in
the year 2007 he found that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia.
It is further submitted that DW-1 Dr. Smt. Nimisha Mishra , Psychologist
posted at Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa , in her deposition stated that
the appellant had been undergoing medical treatment continuously from the
year 2012 to 2017, and during that period a thought disorder was diagnosed.
Learned counsel has also submitted that PW-1 Smt.Sushila Sahu , the mother
of the appellant, did not support the prosecution story. Similarly, PW-2
Chandrawati Sahu, who had received information about the incident from
PW-1 also did not support the prosecution case and both the witnesses were
declared hostile by the prosecution.
9. PW-3 Nirpat Sahu , who was cited as a witness to the seizure also did
not support the prosecution case and denied the alleged seizure. Likewise,
PW-5 Dileep Mishra, PW-6 Awadhlal Tiwari, and PW-7 Mahaveer
Vishwakarma who are independent witnesses also not supported the
prosecution story. It is further submitted that there is no material available on
record to hold the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC (two counts). Despite the absence of reliable evidence the
learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 302 (two counts)
of IPC and convicted him accordingly.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the trial Court
committed illegality in shifting the burden on the appellant to prove the
factum, by invoking Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, and in not
extending the benefit of Section 84 of IPC on the ground of unsoundness of
mind. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shrikant Anandrao
Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748. Paragraphs 13, 14 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
5 CRA-4946-2021
15 are relevant. The same are reproduced as under:
13. The burden to prove that the appellant was of
unsound mind and as a result thereof he was
incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is
on the defence. Section 84 IPC is one of the
provision in Chapter IV IPC which deals with
“general exceptions”. That section provides that
nothing is an offence which is done by a person who,
at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act,
or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to
law. The burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within the purview
of Section 84 lies upon the accused under Section
105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the said
section, the Court shall presume the absence of such
circumstances. Illustration (a) to Section 105 is as
follows :]“(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of
the act.
The burden of proof is on A.”
14. The question whether the appellant has proved
the existence of circumstances bringing his case
within the purview of Section 84 will have to be
examined from the totality of circumstances. The
unsoundness of mind as a result whereof one is
incapable of knowing consequences is a state of mind
of a person which, ordinarily can be inferred from the
circumstances. If, however, an act is committed out
of extreme anger and not as a result of unsoundness
of mind, the accused would not be entitled to the
benefit of exception as contained in Section 84 IPC.
In fact, that is the contention of the learned counsel
for the State. It was contended that the prosecution
evidence has established that the appellant by nature
was an angry person and under the fit of extreme
anger, he committed the murder of his wife as there
was fight between them that morning and there is
nothing to show that at the relevant time the
appellant was under an attack of paranoid
schizophrenia.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
6 CRA-4946-2021
15. At this stage, it is necessary to notice the
nature of the burden that is required to be discharged
by the accused to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. In
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat
[(1964) 7 SCR 361] this Court has held that even if
the accused was not able to establish conclusively
that he was insane at the time he committed the
offence, the evidence placed before the Court may
raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as
regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence,
including mens rea of the accused and in that case the
court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the
ground that the general burden of proof resting on the
prosecution was not discharged. The burden of proof
on the accused to prove insanity is no higher than
that rests upon a party to civil proceedings which, in
other words, means preponderance of probabilities.
This Court held that “The doctrine of burden of
proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be
stated in the following propositions : (1) The
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed the offence with the
requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that
always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to
the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable
presumption that the accused was not insane, when
he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by
s.84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut
it by placing before the court all the relevant
evidenceoral, documentary or circumstantial, but the
burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests
upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the
accused was not able to establish conclusively that he
was insane at the time he committed the offence, the
evidence placed before the court by the accused or by
the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the
mind of the court as regards one or more of the
ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the
accused and in that case the court would be entitled
to acquit the accused on the ground that the general
burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not
discharged.”
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court has
illegally shifted the burden of proof on the appellant, whereas it is the duty of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
7 CRA-4946-2021
the prosecution to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State advanced the arguments and
submitted that though PW-1 and PW-2 did not support the prosecution case
during their deposition before the Trial Court but in their statements
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C as well as in the Dehati Nalishi ,
they had specifically stated that when Sushila Sahu left her house to collect
grass for her cattles, three persons namely the appellant, deceased Dulare
Sahu and deceased Rajkumari, were present in the house. When she returned
after about one hour, she found the dead bodies of Dulare Sahu and
Rajkumari lying in the house, while the appellant was moving from one
place to another and muttering something. It is further contended that once
the prosecution proved that the appellant was present at the spot at the time of
the incident, the burden shifted upon the appellant to explain the
circumstances under which the deaths occurred. Learned counsel for the
State also submitted that the offending weapon, namely Vasoola, was
recovered at the instance of the appellant. The deceased Dulare Sahu
sustained two injuries on his neck and deceased Rajkumari sustained one
injury on the back side of her neck. Both the injuries were caused by a sharp-
edged weapon. The doctor in his opinion given vide Exhibit P-26, stated that
the injuries could have been caused by the seized Vasoola. It is further
submitted that as per the FSL report , human blood was found on the seized
article (Vasoola) as well as on the clothes of the deceased. Thus, the
prosecution has duly established and linked the entire chain of circumstantial
evidence. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned judgment is just, proper,
legal and valid. There is no legal ground or substantial force in the grounds
taken in the appeal or in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.
Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once the
prosecution established that the offence was committed within the four walls
of the house and the accused person was present at the place of incident, the
onus shifted upon the accused. In support of the said contention, reliance has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
8 CRA-4946-2021
been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Primukh Maruti Kirkant
Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 681, wherein it has been
held that when an offence is committed within the four walls of a house, the
burden shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstances and to establish
his innocence.
14. It is further submitted that the plea of unsoundness of mind under
Section 84 of the IPC has been properly considered and dealt with by
Hon’ble the Apex Court in Bapu Alias Gajrat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ,
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 66. In the said judgment, it has been held that the
Court must first determine the mental condition of the accused, and unless it
is established that the accused was incapable of understanding the nature of
the act or was unable to defend himself, it cannot be presumed that he was of
unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence.
15. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
16. As per the arguments raised by the appellant, it is first required to
determine whether at the time of the incident the mental condition of the
appellant was stable or whether he was suffering from any mental disorder.
DW-2 Dr. Sanjay Mishra stated that the appellant had undergone medical
treatment under his supervision. He diagnosed that the appellant was
suffering from schizophrenia and the medical treatment under his supervision
continued till 01/05/2008. PW-1 Dr.Smt. Nimisha Mishra, Psychologist who
is posted at Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, submitted that she had
been continuously providing medical treatment to the appellant in the years
2012, 2015, and 2017. As per her opinion, the appellant was suffering from
formal thought disorder. In cross-examination both the doctors admitted that
the appellant was unable to connect his thoughts and was also unable to
properly express them. Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe and disabling brain
disorder. However, the said disease is treatable and with regular medication
the patient may recover. DW-2 Dr. Sanjay Mishra stated that he prescribed
medicines to the appellant and started his treatment in April 2007, which
continued till 01/05/2008. As per DW-1 Dr. Smt. Nimisha Mishra, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
9 CRA-4946-2021
appellant was suffering from formal thought disorder, which indicates that
the appellant had recovered from schizophrenia. Formal thought disorder is
also a mental condition in which the patient fails to connect and properly
express his thoughts.
17. On a bare perusal of the statements of DW-1 and DW-2, as well as the
prescriptions issued by them, it appears that the appellant was only facing
difficulty in connecting his thoughts and expressing them through language.
The appellant had not lost his decision-making ability or patience, as
observed during the proceedings before the trial Court.
18. The question regarding the mental health of the appellant was also
raised before the trial Court, which called for a report from experts namely
the Psychiatrist and the panel of doctors from the Mental Asylum, Gwalior.
After observing the appellant, the panel of doctors submitted a report stating
that the mental condition of the appellant was stable and he was capable for
properly defending himself. Thereafter, charges were framed and the trial
was concluded.
19. From the above, we reach the conclusion that at the time of the
incident the appellant was not mentally disturbed and was fully aware of the
incident.
20. Now, we have to consider whether the trial Court has committed any
illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order. PW-1 Smt. Sushila
Sahu, who is the wife of the appellant, deposed before the trial Court by
contradicting her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In her
examination-in-chief, she stated that in the evening, between 5:00 P.M. and
6:00 P.M, she left her house and both the deceased persons were present in
the house at that time.
21. PW-2 Chandrawati Sahu, daughter of the deceased, in her statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., stated that PW-1 had informed
her that when she left the house to collect grass, three persons, namely the
appellant and deceased persons were present in the house. She further stated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
10 CRA-4946-2021
that when PW-1 returned, she saw the dead bodies of her father-in-law and
daughter lying in the house, and the appellant was moving from one place to
another and uttering something. However, during her deposition before the
trial Court, she did not support the prosecution story and was declared
hostile.
22. PW-3 Nirpat Sahu, an independent witness also did not support the
prosecution case in his deposition. However, he admitted that he had signed
the documents prepared by the police authorities, namely the memorandum,
seizure memo, and other documents.
23. PW-13 Budhraj Coal, the Investigating Officer, deposed before the
trial Court that he conducted the investigation, prepared the documents, and
seized the articles accordingly. His testimony before the trial Court remained
unshaken. Thus, the seizure of the alleged deadly weapons and other
documents was rightly found to be proved.
24. Dr. Arvind Singh, Medical Officer, conducted the post-mortem of
both the deceased. As per the post-mortem report of deceased Dulare Sahu,
an incised wound was found on the neck and in his opinion, the death was
caused due to the injury on the neck. Similarly, as per Exhibit P-25-A, the
post-mortem report of Rajkumari Sahu, an incised wound was found on the
back side of her neck, and according to the medical opinion, the death was
caused due to injury to the neck and excessive bleeding. During
investigation, the police authorities seized a vasoola from the house of the
appellant at his instance. The said vasoola and blood-stained articles of both
the deceased were sent for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Science
Laboratory, Sagar. As per the laboratory report the blood group could not be
identified as the blood stains were disintegrated.
25. In the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the conclusion that the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale
(supra) does not extend any benefit to the appellant, as the facts of the
present case are quite different from the facts of the cited cases.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27884
11 CRA-4946-2021
26. Once the accused person is able to understand the gravity of the
offence and its consequences, the provisions of Section 84 of the IPC would
not come into play. Further, when this Court has already found that the
prosecution has properly linked the chain of circumstantial evidence, the trial
Court cannot be said to have committed any illegality in shifting the burden
on the appellant under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.
27. Thus, in overall consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal, the
arguments advanced by both the parties, and upon perusal of the record, we
have no hesitation in holding that the trial Court has not committed any
illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we
find no substantial force in the arguments raised by the appellant or in the
grounds taken in the appeal so as to call for interference with the well-
reasoned and speaking order.
28. Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
29. A copy of this order be kept in the record.
30. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
S /-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 09-04-2026
13:28:31