Summary
The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for robbery with hurt and the Arms Act offence, finding the prosecution evidence reliable and the claims of juvenility and unsoundness of mind unsubstantiated. The record showed prompt reporting despite later formal FIR registration. Neither age records nor adequate evidence of mental incapacity at the time of the offence supported the defences. An attempted medical examination could not proceed because the appellant was untraceable. His appeal was dismissed and custody directed for the remaining sentence.
Issues
- Whether the evidence and reporting delay justified interference with conviction.
- Whether the appellant established juvenility or the defence of unsoundness of mind.
Provisions considered
- Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860Required proof on a balance of probabilities of qualifying mental incapacity at the time of the offence; the materials and conduct did not establish it. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860Upheld the High Court’s conviction for robbery with hurt on the reliable evidence. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12, 13, 19)
Held
- Concurrent findings and consistent, corroborative testimony established robbery with hurt. The complainant lacked a motive for false implication, and unexplained refusal of the identification parade carried weight. The original record showed reporting within hours; the further interval concerned police enquiry before formal FIR registration. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Juvenility was unsupported by birth or school records, medical testing or a request for expert examination. The age recorded in the appellant’s Section 313 statement contradicted his assertion that he was fifteen at the occurrence. The defence failed on the evidence, rather than merely because it was raised late. (¶¶ 14, 15, 19)
- Section 84 required the accused to establish, on a preponderance of probabilities, qualifying mental disability at the time of the crime. The photocopied outpatient card and mother’s affidavit did not establish that defence; the appellant’s conduct and reasoned answers also weighed against it. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Court nevertheless attempted to obtain a mental examination. The appellant’s untraceability despite bail prevented that enquiry; neither guilt nor the sentence warranted interference. Bail bonds were cancelled and the State was directed to secure custody for the unserved sentence. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s conviction and reduced sentence were upheld; bail bonds cancelled and the State directed to take the appellant into custody to serve the remainder.