2007 (6) TMI 557 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against conviction u/s 302 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine. The key issue is the applicability of Section 84 IPC regarding the accused's alleged unsoundness of mind at the time of the offense.

Prosecution Version:
The incident involved the accused carrying the chopped head of the deceased with a blood-stained sickle, leading to his arrest. Witness testimonies and police investigation supported the prosecution's case.

Defense Plea and Arguments:
The defense argued that the accused's unsoundness of mind, due to a family history of insanity, should have been considered under Section 84 IPC. However, the trial court and High Court rejected this plea.

Legal Test of Responsibility:
Section 84 IPC defines unsoundness of mind as a ground for exoneration from liability if the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The burden of proving unsoundness of mind rests on the accused.

Types of Mental Disorders:
The judgment discusses different types of mental disorders like idiocy, lunacy, and madness, emphasizing the distinction between legal and medical insanity in criminal responsibility.

Application of Section 84 IPC:
The accused's behavior, treatment history, and conduct during and after the offense were considered to determine the applicability of Section 84 IPC. The judgment concludes that in this case, the protection under Section 84 IPC cannot be applied.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as without merit, affirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC. The judgment suggests immediate treatment for the accused if required by jail authorities at a reputable mental hospital.