2011 (12) TMI 729 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Act of a person of unsound mind - Conviction for offence punishable under Sections 302, 295 and 449 of the IPC - defence of insanity - suffering from Epilepsy - HC acquitted of all the offences - ''mens rea'' - respondent abruptly hurled a stone on head of Pujari Tulsi Das (now deceased) resulting into his instantaneous death - he also damaged the idol and other properties of the temple - This all was unprovoked. HELD THAT - To commit a criminal offence, mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said furiosus nulla voluntus est . In other words, a person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behavior. Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control , at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability. Epileptic Psychosis is a progressing disease and its effects have appropriately been described in the text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 24th Ed. 2011 - Epileptic Psychosis Epilepsy usually occurs from early infancy, though it may occur at any period of life. Individuals, who have had epileptic fits for years, do not necessarily show any mental aberration, but quite a few of them suffer from mental deterioration. Religiousity is a marked feature in the commencement, but the feeling is only superficial. Such patients are peevish, impulsive and suspicious, and are easily provoked to anger on the slightest cause.'' According to the statement of this doctor and the prescription, the respondent was suffering from Epilepsy and while describing post epileptic insanity, this witness stated that after the epileptic attack, a patient behaves like an insane person and he is unable to recognise even the known persons and relatives. During this time, there is a memory loss and the patient can commit any offence. Another witness who was produced by the defence was DW-1, Bhanwar Lal, the brother of the respondent. According to this witness, the respondent was suffering from mental disorder since 1993. He stated that when he gets the fits of insanity, he can fight with anybody, hit anybody and even throw articles lying around him. This oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that the respondent was suffering from epileptic attacks just prior to the incident. Immediately prior to the occurrence, he had behaved violently and had caused injuries to his own family members. After committing the crime, he was arrested by the Police and even thereafter, he was treated for insanity, while in jail. Thus, there is evidence to show continuous mental sickness of the respondent. He not only caused death of the deceased but also on the very same day injured and caused hurt to his family members including DW-1. His statement made under Section 313 Cr.PC is fully corroborated by oral and documentary evidence of DW-2 and Ext. D-3 and D-4. Though, the High Court has not discussed this evidence in great detail, but this being an admissible piece of evidence, can always be relied upon to substantiate the conclusion and findings recorded by the High Court. Ex-facie, injuries do not appear to be so vital that they could have resulted in the death of the deceased, but this fact was required to be proved by expert evidence. There is no documentary or oral evidence to prove the fact that the injuries caused by the respondent to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, we find no error in the judgment under appeal. Thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's acquittal of the respondent based on the plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC.
2. Examination of the prosecution's evidence and whether it proved the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Evaluation of the injuries caused by the respondent and their sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Acquittal Based on the Plea of Insanity:
The respondent was acquitted by the High Court on the grounds of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment of acquittal grants freedom to the accused and should not be interfered with unless it is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous, or violates settled canons of criminal jurisprudence. The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is fortified by acquittal and interference is warranted only for compelling and substantial reasons. The Court referenced several precedents, including State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan, State of M.P. v. Bacchudas, and State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao, which elucidate the principles guiding appellate interference with acquittals.

2. Examination of the Prosecution's Evidence:
The prosecution's case was that the respondent hurled a stone at the deceased, causing his death, and also damaged temple property. The respondent claimed insanity under Section 84 IPC, supported by evidence from DW-2 Dr. Vimal Kumar Razdan and DW-1 Bhanwar Lal. The High Court accepted this plea, noting continuous mental sickness and behavior indicative of insanity, corroborated by medical records and witness testimonies. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment, stating it was based on proper appreciation of evidence and consistent with criminal jurisprudence principles.

3. Evaluation of the Injuries and Their Sufficiency to Cause Death:
The prosecution failed to prove that the injuries inflicted by the respondent were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries described were lacerated wounds and an abrasion, with the cause of death being shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. However, neither the post-mortem report nor the testimony of PW-20 Dr. C.P. Bhati explicitly stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause death. The Supreme Court highlighted this deficiency, referencing Ram Jattan v. State of U.P. and State of Rajasthan v. Kalu, which stressed the necessity of proving the sufficiency of injuries to cause death. The absence of such proof weakened the prosecution's case, further justifying the High Court's acquittal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment of acquittal was based on a reasonable view of the evidence and did not suffer from legal infirmities. The prosecution's failure to prove the sufficiency of the injuries to cause death and the established plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC were critical factors. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.