9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As directed, the driver called said Shasdhar Mukherjee and the deceased started talking to him from inside the car. According to the prosecution all of a sudden the Appellant, the owner of the Medical Hall came there with a country-made pistol, pushed Shasdhar Mukherjee aside and fired at point-blank range at the deceased. The driver fled away from the place of occurrence and informed the family members of the deceased, leaving the deceased in the car itself. PW.4, Vinod Kumar Choubey along with the driver came back and rushed the deceased to the Chas Nala Colliery Hospital, where he was declared dead. On the basis of the aforesaid report a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the Appellant. After usual investigation police submitted the charge-sheet and ultimately the Appellant was put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses besides a large number of documents were exhibited. Only plea of the Appellant during the trial was that by virtue of unsoundness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record to prove that the Appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably drawn that the Appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. He was under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the Appellant, we are of the view that the Appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get the benefit of Section 84 IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of an extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant cannot be sustained. 6. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of mind' in IPC. 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 mind has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 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 the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought. 11. In the background of what we have observed above, we proceed to consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
