Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and s.84 – Plea of Insanity – “Schizophrenia” – Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC for having caused the death of the victim-deceased by attacking him at a store in which the deceased was working, with an iron locking plate without any provocation and premeditation – In the course of trial, the defence pleaded insanity – At one of the hospitals where the accused was undergoing the treatment before the date of incident, it was recorded that the accused was suffering from anxiety neurosis with reactive depression and has symptoms of acid peptic disease and mild hypertension and the treatment was akin to one meant for schizophrenia – Two doctors were examined before the Sessions Court wherein they deposed positively pointing towards schizophrenia – On trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused of the said offence, and the Conviction was upheld by the High Court – Aggrieved by the decision, the accused approached Supreme Court – Held: The courts below erred in not accepting the reports of the doctors, more so when one of them withstood crossexamination and hence the conviction could not be said to be well founded – Further, the mere fact that the accused subsequently became fit to face the trial is sufficient enough to render an order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity – Also that both the Trial Court and the High Court were influenced by the nature of the act while ignoring the condition of the appellant and the fact that the burden on the accused is one of preponderance of probability.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84 – Plea of Insanity – S.84 of the Code recognized only the ‘acts’ which could not be termed as an offence – For the said section to apply such an act must emanate from an unsound mind – Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision – A mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind – There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC – There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law. Maxims – Actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea – Unsound mind – A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act – When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 8, 105 – Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions – Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case u/s. 84 of the IPC, one has to apply the concept of preponderance of probabilities – The aforesaid provision has to be read along with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XXV – ss. 329339 – Object and Purpose – The idea under the provisions to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability – The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 84 of the IPC recognizes only an act which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words “nothing is an offence”. The said words are a clear indication of the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission. [Para 4][828-A-C]
2. The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law. The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the consequence of it. [Paras 5 and 6][828-C-G]
2. The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case under Section 84 of the IPC, one has to apply the concept of preponderance of probabilities. The aforesaid provision has to be read along with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The better way to reconcile the aforesaid provision would be to have a look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence. [Paras 8 and 9][831-A-D]
3. As Section 84 of the IPC has its laudable objective behind it, the prosecution and the Court have their distinct roles to play. The agency has to take up the investigation from the materials produced on behalf of the person claiming unsoundness. It has to satisfy itself that the case would not come within the purview of Section 84 of the IPC. The Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether the act was done by a person with an unsound mind within the rigour of Section 84 of the IPC. [Paras 10 and 11][831E-F]
4. Having noted the scope and ambit of Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C., including the provisions incorporated by way of amendments in the year 2009, one has to take into account the fact that the Court has a larger role to play while considering the case under Section 84 of the IPC. If a friendly approach is required to be followed during the trial, when adequate powers have been conferred upon the Court to even discharge an accused on the ground of an unsound mind, the same reasoning will have to be applied with much force when it comes to Section 84 of the IPC. The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability. The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice. [Paras 17 and 16][835-B-D] Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC
495 : [2011] 1 SCR 133; Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109 : [2008] 12
SCR 949; Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 8 SCC 66 : [2007] 7 SCR 917; Dahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 : [1964] 7 SCR 361; Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 718 : [2018] 7 SCR 767 – relied on.
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.