2023 (1) TMI 1306 - SC - Indian Laws

Act of a person of unsound mind - doctrine of burden of proof - Rebuttal of presumption - mental illness caused by Schizophrenia - attacking the deceased - HELD THAT - Before the Court of Sessions, an application Under Section 329 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the Appellant. Even while considering the application for bail, the Court noticed the inability of the Appellant to understand the ongoing proceedings. Two doctors were examined as AWs 1 and 2, for the fact that he was indeed suffering from schizophrenia. AW2 was examined to show that he was taking the treatment earlier at GMC Hospital at Bhiwani. AW1 is the doctor who examined him after the occurrence on the orders of the trial court. She had deposed that he was indeed suffering from chronic schizophrenia - The fact that he was unable to understand the act committed, and his subsequent incarceration was taken note of. While issuing the first certificate, this Government doctor in clear terms had stated that the Appellant was not fit enough to stand the trial. However, she gave another certificate after treating him as an in-patient to the effect that he could stand trial thereafter. The Court of Sessions and the High Court rendered the conviction on merits. The plea of insanity was also taken. It was accordingly rejected on the ground that PW6, the brother of the grandfather of the Appellant, did not find any abnormality and that his mother has not been examined. Further, PW10 being the doctor who physically examined the Accused after the incident, stated that the Accused was mentally well. The mere fact that the Appellant subsequently became fit to face the trial is sufficient enough to render an order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity - 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. The order dated 25.07.2006 of the trial court of conviction and sentence of the Appellant punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment and order dated 02.06.2008 of the High Court affirming the same are set aside - The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges charged with. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Plea of Insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Burden of Proof under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Evaluation of Legal and Medical Insanity.
4. Application of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Plea of Insanity under Section 84 of the IPC:
The appellant raised the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC to seek reversal of the conviction order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa and the Additional Sessions Judge, S.G. Margao-II. Section 84 states: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." The court emphasized that the existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non for the applicability of this provision. The test for unsoundness is from the point of view of a prudent man, and legal insanity, not medical insanity, must be proven.

2. Burden of Proof under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act:
Under Section 105, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances that bring the case within any general exceptions, such as Section 84 IPC, lies on the accused. The accused must establish this on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The court referenced the decision in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, which laid down that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. The accused can rebut the presumption of sanity by presenting relevant evidence, and if a reasonable doubt is raised, the court is entitled to acquit the accused.

3. Evaluation of Legal and Medical Insanity:
The court distinguished between legal and medical insanity, noting that legal insanity involves the inability to know the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The court referenced several cases, including Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand and Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, to emphasize that not every person with a mental disease is exempt from criminal liability. The court also acknowledged schizophrenia as a severe mental illness that could affect the accused's mental state at the time of the offence.

4. Application of Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C.:
Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure for accused persons of unsound mind. Sections 328 to 339 provide a framework for determining whether an accused is fit to stand trial. The court noted that it is the mandatory duty of the court to ascertain the mental state of the accused and that the court can discharge an accused if their inability to stand trial continues. The court emphasized that the role of the court is to find remedial measures and do complete justice.

Facts and Analysis:
The appellant attacked the deceased without provocation and was seen behaving abnormally before and after the incident. He had a history of treatment for schizophrenia and was declared unfit to stand trial initially but later deemed fit. The trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant, rejecting the insanity plea based on the testimony of witnesses who did not find any abnormality. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence of the government doctor, who confirmed the appellant's schizophrenia, was not adequately considered. The court also noted that the appellant's subsequent fitness to stand trial indicated prior insanity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC, as the evidence supported his claim of insanity at the time of the offence. The bail bonds of the accused were discharged, and any pending applications were disposed of.