TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal insanity means, person suffering from mental illness should also have a loss of reasoning power - mere abnormality of mind or compulsive behavior is not sufficient to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC. In the present case, the Appellant had given repeated blows on the head of his mother Phuliya Bai and had also assaulted his father/complainant repeatedly on his head, leg, shoulder etc. Phuliya Bai lost her control. The Appellant was arrested from the bus stand with lathi. At the time of arrest, the arresting officer, did not notice any mental illness. Even the Trial Court did not notice any mental illness on the date when he was produced for the first time. Even assuming that he was suffering from psychosis, then it is clear that it was not in continuity but was in intervals. Therefore, the moot question is that whether the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident or not? - The incident took place on 26-3-2010 at 1:00 P.M. The Appellant was arrested on 27-3-2012 at 17:30 i.e., on the next day. No mental unsoundness was noticed by Gahlaut Semliya (P.W. 9),who had arrested the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant was arrested on the next day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his shoulders. When he tried to catch hold the lathi, then he sustained injuries on his thumb. His daughter-in-law Asha shouted to come inside the room and accordingly, he and his daughter-inlaw locked themselves inside the room. After some time, the Appellant went away. Thereafter, the complainant came out and found that his wife had already expired and her dead body is lying there. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The complainant was sent for medical examination. The post-mortem of the dead body was got done. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant was arrested. The police after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the Appellant for offence under Sections 302,307 of IPC. 3. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302,307 of IPC 4. The Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution examined Anguribai (P.W.1), Daujaram (P.W.2), Ashabai (P.W.3), Ramprasad (P.W.4), Ishaq Khan (P.W.5), Sultan Khan (P.W.6), Dr. Shambhudayal Barua (P.W.7), Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.8), Gahlaut Semliya (P.W.9), Devendra Singh Kushwaha (P.W.10) and Yudhishthar Singh (P.W.11). 6. The Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is witness, that the injuries could have been sustained due to fall from height. 14. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased could have fallen from any height. Thus, it is held that the death of deceased Phuliya Bai was homicidal in nature. 15. Douja (P.W.2) was medically examined by Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W. 8) who found following injuries on his body : (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm mid parietal region of skull (ii) Swelling 4 cm x 4 cm left hand (iii) Swelling 6 cm x 4 cm left shoulder (iv) Swelling 10 cm x 6 cm left thigh. The MLC is Ex. P. 11. 16. This witness was cross-examined. In cross-examination, he stated that injuries could have been sustained by reason of fall or due to dashing against the wall. 17. Thus, it is clear that Douja had sustained four injuries. 18. Now the next question for consideration is that whether the Appellant is the author of the incident or not? 19. Anguri Bai (P.W.1) has stated that the Appellant was sitting in front of her house. When She objected to it, then he went back to his house. Thus, this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case regarding making complaint to the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was sitting in front of her house, then not only, he assaulted his mother but also assaulted his father/complainant as a result, his mother lost her life. However, Anguri Bai (P.W.1) turned hostile on the question of making complaint to the effect that the Appellant was sitting in front of her house, but admitted that the Appellant was sitting in front of her house and when She objected then he went back to his house. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant was sitting in front of the house of Anguri Bai (P.W.1). 26. Doujaram (P.W.2) and Asha (P.W.3) have stated about the assault made by Appellant on Phuliya bai and Doujaram (P.W.2). 27. From the ordersheets of the Trial Court, it appears that on 8-8-2012, the Appellant was produced before the Court and he also stated that he is unable to engage any lawyer. Accordingly, letter was forwarded to Secretary, Distt. Legal Services Officer, and accordingly, Shri Prem Narayan Bhargav, filed his memorandum on behalf of the Appellant. On 4-9-2012, the Appellant was not produced from Jail. It was also mentioned that an application was made to the remand magistrate for sending the Appellant for his mental treatment and accordingly by orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well reasoned and unimpeachable. 33. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Gond Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 109 has held as under : 10 . 7. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of unsoundness of mind in I.P.C.. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which arises by virtue of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ) and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act with which he is charged. The burden on the accused is no higher than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding. (See Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. 9. There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind) i.e. (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos by illness; (3) a lunatic or a mad man; and (4) one who is drunk. An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like, (see Archbold s Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn., pp. 31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 105; 1 Hale s Pleas of the Crown 34). A person made non compos mentis by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 4 SCC 79 held that: (SCC p. 79) The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and children or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broke open, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated M Naughton rules of 19th century England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the same as that laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords, in M Naughton case, (1843) 4 St Tr NS 847 (HL). Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender s mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ussell, 12th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 103; Hale PC 31). Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity. 10 . Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law i.e. actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla voluntas est). 11 . The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an 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 had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past, or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. 35. In the case of Sudhaka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dness of mind. There is no definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in I.P.C.. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term 'insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. 9 . In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt on the prosecution case. 10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadull, AIR 1961 SC 998, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV. 11. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV. 11 . In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Penal Code, 1860 is claimed, the court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought. Dealing with the plea of insanity, the scope of Section 84 I.P.C., the attending circumstances and the burden of proof, this Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat held: (AIR pp. 1566-67, para 5) It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity. 12 . After referring to various textbooks and the earlier pronouncements of this Court, it was further held: (AIR p. 1568, para 7) 7. 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 Section 84 of the Penal Code, 1860: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence - oral, 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 establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40. In the present case, the Appellant had given repeated blows on the head of his mother Phuliya Bai and had also assaulted his father/complainant repeatedly on his head, leg, shoulder etc. Phuliya Bai lost her control. The Appellant was arrested from the bus stand with lathi. At the time of arrest, the arresting officer, did not notice any mental illness. Even the Trial Court did not notice any mental illness on the date when he was produced for the first time. Even assuming that he was suffering from psychosis, then it is clear that it was not in continuity but was in intervals. Therefore, the moot question is that whether the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident or not? 41. The incident took place on 26-3-2010 at 1:00 P.M. The Appellant was arrested on 27-3-2012 at 17:30 i.e., on the next day. No mental unsoundness was noticed by Gahlaut Semliya (P.W. 9),who had arrested the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant was arrested on the next day, therefore, it is clear that after committing the offence, he absconded. Thus, it is clear that he was able to understand the gravity of his act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
