MUMBAI: Sleeping beside the corpse of one's wife through the night is reason enough to prove a man's 'insanity', observed the Bombay high court while setting aside the life term awarded to a 29-year-old teacher from Buldhana.
The Nagpur bench of Justice A H Joshi and Justice A B Choudhary on February 2 acquitted Vilas Surushe of the charge of murdering his wife Meena. The judges accepted the argument of Surushe's defence lawyer that he is insane and under psychiatric treatment.
The judges noted evidence given by a defence witness that though Surushe was serving as a teacher; he was under treatment of a psychiatrist.
The Nagpur bench of Justice A H Joshi and Justice A B Choudhary on February 2 acquitted Vilas Surushe of the charge of murdering his wife Meena. The judges accepted the argument of Surushe's defence lawyer that he is insane and under psychiatric treatment.
The judges noted evidence given by a defence witness that though Surushe was serving as a teacher; he was under treatment of a psychiatrist.
The case dates back to February 13, 2001, when Surushe was found sleeping next to Meena.
Meena's mother-in-law Indubai had told one Digambar Raut that Meena had died the previous night and her son was not aware of what was going on. Raut had then lodged a complaint with the police, who arrested Indubai and Surushe.
The accused were charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 498-A (dowry harassment) of the Indian Penal Code. A sessions court had convicted Surushe under both the sections. Surushe was granted life imprisonment for murder. The court had also awarded one more year in jail along with Indubai for dowry harassment.
The evidence shows that Surushe was suffering from some mental disorder, due to which he was not in a position to understand the consequences of the acts he was doing or that it was an offence, said the judges.
"While the proposition is simple and obvious, that by itself does not attribute the act of homicide to Surushe, particularly in the background that when it has come in evidence that he was found sleeping in the company of his wife's corpse, which by itself was disorderly, abnormal and insane behaviour."
The high court also noted that complainant Digambar Raut had, while lodging the FIR, informed the police that Surushe was under psychiatric treatment. "The only argument on which the prosecution wants Surushe to be held responsible for the act of homicide is his being in the company of the deceased, as he was her husband and custodian," said the judges.
The high court also noted that prosecution had failed to recover the weapon with which Meena was killed and noted that only circumstantial evidence cannot be accepted to hold the accused guilty.
Meena's mother-in-law Indubai had told one Digambar Raut that Meena had died the previous night and her son was not aware of what was going on. Raut had then lodged a complaint with the police, who arrested Indubai and Surushe.
The accused were charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 498-A (dowry harassment) of the Indian Penal Code. A sessions court had convicted Surushe under both the sections. Surushe was granted life imprisonment for murder. The court had also awarded one more year in jail along with Indubai for dowry harassment.
The evidence shows that Surushe was suffering from some mental disorder, due to which he was not in a position to understand the consequences of the acts he was doing or that it was an offence, said the judges.
"While the proposition is simple and obvious, that by itself does not attribute the act of homicide to Surushe, particularly in the background that when it has come in evidence that he was found sleeping in the company of his wife's corpse, which by itself was disorderly, abnormal and insane behaviour."
The high court also noted that complainant Digambar Raut had, while lodging the FIR, informed the police that Surushe was under psychiatric treatment. "The only argument on which the prosecution wants Surushe to be held responsible for the act of homicide is his being in the company of the deceased, as he was her husband and custodian," said the judges.
The high court also noted that prosecution had failed to recover the weapon with which Meena was killed and noted that only circumstantial evidence cannot be accepted to hold the accused guilty.
