Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 324 and 84 – Murder – Plea of unsound mind – Prosecution case that appellant assaulted few with sickle, which resulted in death of one – Appellant then tried to flee from the place of occurrence after throwing the weapon but was apprehended by villagers – Plea of unsoundness of mind by appellant – Rejected by the courts below and conviction of the appellant u/ss. 302, 324 – On appeal, held: In view of the previous history of insanity of the appellant, it was the duty of the investigator to subject the accused to medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the court – Prosecution deliberately withheld relevant evidence with regard to the nature of the appellant’s mental illness, his mental condition at the time of assault, requiring hospitalization immediately after the assault and hindering his arrest, the diagnosis and treatment, and the evidence of the treating doctor – Courts below erred in proper consideration and appreciation of evidence, virtually abjuring all such evidence available raising doubts about the mental status of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence – In view thereof, appellant entitled to benefit of the exception u/s. 84 because of the preponderance of his medical condition at the time of occurrence – Prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt – Thus, appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and is acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 P.W.14-sub inspector, in his examination-inchief, stated that the appellant was caught immediately after he made the assault and brought to the police station. The FIR was registered the same day. But the appellant was taken in custody two days later because he was not keeping well and had been admitted in the hospital. The information of his arrest was not given to his sister or mother, but only to his friend who has not been examined. In view of the previous history of insanity of the appellant as revealed, it was the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The admitted facts in the instant case strongly persuades to believe that the prosecution had deliberately withheld relevant evidence with regard to the nature of the appellant’s mental illness, his mental condition at the time of assault, requiring hospitalization immediately after the assault and hindering his arrest, the diagnosis and treatment, the evidence of the treating doctor, all of which necessarily casts a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence raising more than reasonable doubts about the mental condition of the appellant. Unfortunately, both the trial court and the High Court, have completely failed to consider and discuss this very important lacuna in the prosecution case, decisively crucial for determination or abjurement of the guilt of the appellant. [Para 9][774-A-E]
1.2 The law presumes that every person committing an offence is sane and liable for his acts, though in specified circumstances it may be rebuttable. Section 84 IPC carves out an exception, that an act will not be an offence, if done by a person, who at the time of doing the same, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. But this onus on the accused, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is not as stringent as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused has only to establish his defence on a preponderance of probability, after which the onus shall shift on the prosecution to establish the inapplicability of the exception. But, it is not every and any plea of unsoundness of mind that will suffice. The standard of test to be applied shall be of legal insanity and not medical insanity. [Paras 10, 11][774-E-F; 775-C-E]
1.3 The crucial point of time for considering the defence plea of unsoundness of mind has to be with regard to the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed collated from evidence of conduct which preceded, attended and followed the crime. If from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal. [Paras 12, 13][775-G-H; 776-C-D]
1.4 Merely because an injured witness, who may legitimately be classified as an interested witness for obvious reasons, may have stated that the appellant was not of unsound mind, cannot absolve the primary duty of the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt explaining why the plea for unsoundness of mind taken by the accused was untenable. [Para 14][776-E-F]
1.5 The trial court records reflect several medical visits in prison, even weekly, 12 in number, administering of antipsychotic drugs to the appellant with the impression recorded by the doctor that the patient is psychotic and needs continuation of treatment. The significance of use of the words “continuation” cannot be lost sight of, and has obviously been used with regard to a preexisting ailment. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant that he was not fit to face trial. A fresh medical report was called for which opined that the appellant was a chronic patient of psychotics who has been evaluated time and again by the Mental Hospital. Thereafter, the trial court directed him to be sent to the Mental Hospital and called for a fresh report. The appellant was prescribed Trinicalm Forte/Trinicalm Plus tablet amongst other medicines. [Para 15][776-F-H; 777-A-B]
1.6 The doctor deposed that he had no materials with regard to the previous history of the appellant, that none of his relatives were present at the time of such examination, and he could not therefore say anything regarding any pre-existing mental disorder of the appellant. D.W.1, the sister of the appellant, and his mother D.W.2, stated that the appellant had to be tied up at times and was unable to take care of himself, including clothing on his person. The prosecution did not deny the fact of a treating Psychiatrist mentioned by the witness. The appellant and his family were poor people and could hardly be expected to meticulously preserve medical papers or lead expert evidence. Merely because five years later in the witness box the witness may have stated that there was no complaint from the police with regard to the conduct of the appellant in custody, the trial judge manifestly erred in his conclusion with regard to the mental state of the appellant at the time of occurrence by testing it on the touchstone of the present demenaour in court and present conduct of the appellant, without any reference to the medication that was being provided to the appellant while in custody. Naturally, if the appellant was being provided proper medical treatment during custody, his condition would certainly improve over time. [Paras 17, 18][778-F-H; 779-A-B]
1.7 The trial judge erred in proper consideration and appreciation of evidence, virtually abjuring all such evidence available raising doubts about the mental status of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence, so as to leave his conviction as a foregone conclusion. The trial judge unfortunately did not consider it necessary to put further questions to P.W.14 with regard to the hospitalisation of the appellant immediately after the occurrence and why the prosecution had not placed the necessary evidence in this regard before the court. The trial judge thus, erred in her duty. Appellate Court also had a duty to consider the nature of the evidence led by PW14 and the other medical evidence available on record with regard to the appellant. Unfortunately, it appears that the appellate court also did not delve into the records in the manner required. [Paras 19, 20][779-BD; 780-A-B] State of Rajasthan v. Ani alias Hanif and ors [1997]
1 SCR 199 : (1997) 6 SCC 162; Rama and others v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 571 – referred to.
1.8 Appellant has been able to create sufficient doubt in mind that he is entitled to the benefit of the exception under section 84 IPC because of the preponderance of his medical condition at the time of occurrence, as revealed from the materials and evidence on record. The prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. [Para 21][780-D-E]
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [1964] 7 SCR 361; Elavarasan v. State represented by Inspector of Police [2011] 10 SCR 1147 : (2011) 7 SCC 110; Deepak Kumar v. Ravi Virmani and another [2002]
1 SCR 786 : (2002) 2 SCC 737; Bapu vs. State of Rajasthan [2007] 7 SCR 917 : (2007) 8 SCC 66;
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964) 7 SCR 361; Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand [2011] 1 SCR 133 : (2011) 11 SCC 495; State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram [2011] 15 SCR 485 :(2012) 1 SCC 602; Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1971] 3 SCR 251 : (1970) 3 SCC 533;
Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. [1990] 2 SCR 573 : (1990)
3 SCC 190 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.