9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant always sits outside her house, and he should not sit there. When he asked his son (Appellant) as to why he sits in front of the house of others, then the Appellant became angry and assaulted Phuliabai (mother of Appellant and wife of Complainant) twice by lathi. Blood started oozing out from her head and both ears. When the complainant tried to save her, the Appellant started assaulting the complainant also. Lathi blows were given thrice as a result he has sustained multiple injuries on his head. Lathi blow was given on left thigh as well as on his shoulders. When he tried to catch hold the lathi, then he sustained injuries on his thumb. His daughter-in-law Asha shouted to come inside the room and accordingly, he and his daughter-inlaw locked themselves inside the room. After some time, the Appellant went away. Thereafter, the complainant came out and found that his wife had already expired and her dead body is lying there. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The complainant was sent for medical examination. The post-mortem of the dead body was got done. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant was arrested. The police after completing investigation filed charge s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture (10 cm) over left temporal region. Compound fracture 6 cm x 1 cm over fight temporal bone, brain material comes from right side compound wound fracture. Mode of Death : that death mode is coma due to excessive injury over head, brain (vital organ) and hemorrhage. Type : Homicidal. Time since within 30 hours (24 to 30 Hours) of PM. Circumstantial evidences should be taken into consideration. The Post-mortem report is Ex. P.10. 13. Only one question was put to this witness in cross-examination and it was admitted by this witness, that the injuries could have been sustained due to fall from height. 14. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased could have fallen from any height. Thus, it is held that the death of deceased Phuliya Bai was homicidal in nature. 15. Douja (P.W.2) was medically examined by Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W. 8) who found following injuries on his body : (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm mid parietal region of skull (ii) Swelling 4 cm x 4 cm left hand (iii) Swelling 6 cm x 4 cm left shoulder (iv) Swelling 10 cm x 6 cm left thigh. The MLC is Ex. P. 11. 16. This witness was cross-examined. In cross-examination, he stated that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex. P. 6. Memorandum is Ex. P.7 ad seizure memo is Ex. P.8. In cross7 examination, he denied that during investigation, he was told that the appellant was mad. However, he admitted that during investigation, he had come to know that for the last 5-6 months, the Appellant was being treated for mental weakness. 25. Although the original prosecution story was that Anguri Bai (P.W.1) had made a complaint that the Appellant was sitting in front of her house and when Doujaram asked the Appellant as to why he was sitting in front of her house, then not only, he assaulted his mother but also assaulted his father/complainant as a result, his mother lost her life. However, Anguri Bai (P.W.1) turned hostile on the question of making complaint to the effect that the Appellant was sitting in front of her house, but admitted that the Appellant was sitting in front of her house and when She objected then he went back to his house. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant was sitting in front of the house of Anguri Bai (P.W.1). 26. Doujaram (P.W.2) and Asha (P.W.3) have stated about the assault made by Appellant on Phuliya bai and Doujaram (P.W.2). 27. From the ordersheets of the Trial Court, it a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 84 IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual's ability to distinguish right from wrong. Further, it must be established that the accused was afflicted by such disability particularly at the time of the crime and that but for such impairment, the crime would not have been committed. The reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving these defences are thus well reasoned and unimpeachable. 33. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Gond Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 109 has held as under : 10. "7. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in I.P.C.. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term 'insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that 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 onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. 9. There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind) i.e. (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos by illness; (3) a lunatic or a mad man; and (4) one who is drunk. An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the physical effects of his act. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section. This Court in Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 4 SCC 79 held that: (SCC p. 79) '... The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and children or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broke open, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence.' Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated M'Naughton rules of 19th century England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the same as that lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ike, (see Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn., pp. 31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 105; 1 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 34). A person made non compos mentis by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under the influence of this disorder, (see 1 Hale PC 30). A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason, (see Russell, 12th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 103; Hale PC 31). Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity. 10. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law i.e. actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla voluntas est). 11. The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section." 8. The scope and ambit of the Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code also came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109 : AIR 2009 SC 31 in which it has been held as follows: Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in I.P.C.. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term 'insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity." 9. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression "unsoundness of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. 10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadull, AIR 1961 SC 998, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV. 11. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the court has to conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. 10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadulla this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV. 11. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Penal Code, 1860 is claimed, the court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. If the Judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity." 12. After referring to various textbooks and the earlier pronouncements of this Court, it was further held: (AIR p. 1568, para 7) "7. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit for entering into his defence. Thus, whenever, the Appellant was produced before the Trial Court, no abnormality was noticed by the Court. Thus, it is clear that the effect of psychosis was not continuous. Under these circumstances, the medical documents would have thrown much light in the matter. But the Appellant did not produce even a single document to show that he was being treated for mental illness. 40. In the present case, the Appellant had given repeated blows on the head of his mother Phuliya Bai and had also assaulted his father/complainant repeatedly on his head, leg, shoulder etc. Phuliya Bai lost her control. The Appellant was arrested from the bus stand with lathi. At the time of arrest, the arresting officer, did not notice any mental illness. Even the Trial Court did not notice any mental illness on the date when he was produced for the first time. Even assuming that he was suffering from psychosis, then it is clear that it was not in continuity but was in intervals. Therefore, the moot question is that whether the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident or not? 41. The incident took place on 26-3-2010 at 1:00 P.M. The Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
