9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 affirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de recognizes only an act which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words nothing is an offence . The said words are a clear indication of the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission. 5. The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is a very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Code. 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... Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 8 SCC 66 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 disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged. 9. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person Accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, one has to apply the concept of preponderance of probabilities. The aforesaid provision has to be read along with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The better way to reconcile the aforesaid provision would be to have a look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence. 10. As Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code has its laudable objective behind it, the prosecution and the Court have their distinct roles to play. The agency has to take up the investigation from the materials produced on behalf of the person claiming unsoundness. It has to satisfy itself that the case would not come within the purview of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether the act was done by a person with an unsound mind within the rigour of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les of 19th century England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the same as those laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords, in M'Naughton's case [(1843) 4 St Tr NS 847 (HL)]. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the 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 vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 84 of the Penal Code, the Accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence - oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings'. 13. If from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the mental condition of the Accused at the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal, as observed in Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190: 1990 SCC (Cri) 378 . CHAPTER XXV OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 15. Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.'), though procedural in nature, also becomes substantive when it deals with an Accused person of unsound mind. A well-laid procedure is contemplated Under Sections 328 to 339 of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is not even a need for an application Under Section 329 of Code of Criminal Procedure in finding out as to whether an Accused would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the Court. Under Section 330, the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for proof of culpability Under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. Is the Accused mentally unsound? Is the mental unsoundness such that s/he is not capable of knowing (i) the nature of act; or (ii) the act is wrong, or (iii) contrary to law? These questions are directly related to testing the requirement of law. Is s/he capable of understanding the nature of proceedings in Court and stand trial? This shall be necessary to ensure that he has sufficient ability to consult with is counsel instruct him for a fair trial and defence. Every Accused is bound to know the nature of proceedings against him/her. What was the mental condition of the Accused, when the crime took place? Is it likely that the Accused is malingering mental illness? The answers will point out to fixing the criminal responsibility to the acts attributed to him/her. Post-trial care may issue questions like: What is prognosis for cure for the mental illness? Will s/he be dangerous not to be let at large? In many a foreign jurisdiction, the questions may vary depending on the nature of proof of insanity and its intensity that is relevant under law to appraise criminal responsibility for the act: Could there have been an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since it was thought that the disease always ended in dementia, it meant a hopeless prognosis, which created a spirit of defeatism in the minds of people. Elizabeth A. Martin (2007), Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary (7th edition) , pg. 642 Schizophrenia n. a severe *mental illness characterised by a disintegration of the process of thinking, of contact with reality, and of emotional responsiveness. Positive symptoms, such as *delusions and hallucinations (especially of voices), are common, and any *Schneiderian first-rank symptoms are particularly indicative of the illness. Negative symptoms include social withdrawal, impairment of ego boundaries, and loss of energy and initiative. Schizophrenia is diagnosed only if symptoms persist for at least one month. The illness can spontaneously remit, run a course with infrequent or frequent relapses, or become chronic. The prognosis has improved with *anti-psychotic drugs and with vigorous psychological and social management and rehabilitation. The many causes include genetic factors, environmental stress, and possibly illicit drug use. American Psychiatric Association 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once again made a clear deposition in tune with the certificate issued by her earlier that he was suffering from schizophrenia, and it must have been from the age of 14 or 15 years. 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. 24. 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. 25. However, the evidence of the Government doctor who deposed as AW1 and DW1 was brushed aside, so also the evidence of DW2, who was the uncle of the Accused, and clearly spoke about the earlier treatment rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
