IMPORTANT POINT
The totality of circumstances proved in this case show that the murder of his wife by the appellant was not as a result of extreme anger but unsoundness of mind within the exception of Section 84 of IPC hence the conviction of appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentence cannot be sustained.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder by Appellant husband of his wife in day light-Defence of insanity at the time of offence under Section 84-Not accepted by Court below-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 105-Onus to prove-Court below holding crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether appellant is entitled to benefit of insanity in the circumstances of the case? (Yes)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception. We have already noticed earlier that unsoundness of mind preceding occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. It has rightly not been questioned by learned counsel for the State. Regarding the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence, in our opinion, ordinarily that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances. Further, as earlier noticed, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings. The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these :
        1. The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering from psychlatric illness.
        2. Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part.
        3. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 - Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
        4. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital.
        5. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.
        6. The weak motive of killing of wife - being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.
        7. Killing in day light - no attempt to hide or run away.
       Mr. Arun Pednekar relies upon Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. The State of Maharashtra [(1973) 4 SCC 79] to contend that mere fact that the appellant did not make any attempt to run away or that he committed the crime in day light and did not try to hide it or that motive to kill his wife was very weak, would not indicate that at the time of commission of the act the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind or he did not have requisite mens rea for the commission of the offence. It is correct that these facts itself would not indicate insanity. In the presence 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 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 benefit of Section 84 IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of 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.
        (Paras 17 to 20)
       Held consequently : For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Insanity of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, is the main plea that has been urged before us for reversing the conviction and sentence in question.

2. The appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the High Court, this appeal has been filed on grant of leave.

3. Shortly put, the prosecution case is that the appellant was a Police Constable. He and Surekha were married in the year 1987. On the date of the incident, they were living in police quarters along with their daughter. On the morning of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrel between husband and wife. While Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her with grinding stone on her head. The appellant was immediately taken by the police to the quarter guard. Surekha was taken to the Hospital. She was found dead. After usual investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of murder of his wife.

4. On appreciation of evidence, the appellant was found guilty by the Sessions Court. The evidence was again appreciated by the High Court. The judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed. We have heard learned counsel and have perused the record. In our opinion also, there is enough cogent evidence to prove that the appellant killed his wife.

5. Now, the only aspect to be considered is the defence of insanity of the appellant. That defence has not found favour with the Sessions Court and the High Court. Dr. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curie has vehemently and ably argued that the appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of alleged killing of his wife and was, thus, entitled to benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 IPC. With equal vehemence and ability, Mr. Arun Pednekar argued that the appellant killed his wife not because of insanity but on account of extreme anger, which is different from insanity.

6. Learned counsel for the State, relying upon prosecution witnesses, contended that the appellant, earlier than the date of incident, used to quarrel with his wife; drink excessive liquor and used to get excited and this evidence proves that he, by nature, was a man of extreme anger. During fit of extreme anger, he killed his wife.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish the plea of unsoundness of mind, drew our attention to the depositions of Dr. Arun (DW 2) and Dr. Pramod (DW 3). The case history and other proved medical record shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was an indoor patient at a Government hospital from 28th October, 1993 to 5th November, 1993 for getting treatment for the said ailment. It further stands established that he was suffering from this disease at least from 20th April, 1992. He was examined by DW 3 on 20th April, 1992 having visited the said doctor with his wife. It also stands established that 25 times he was taken to hospital for treatment of his mental ailment from 27th June, 1994 to 5th December, 1994. DW 2 deposed that the appellant was examined by him on 27th October, 1993. He suffered from suspicious idea persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and excitement and was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. The appellant was intermittently becoming apprehensive and excited. DW 3 deposed that on 20th April 1992, he examined the appellant brought by his wife. There was history of psychiatric illness in father at the age of 65 years and in 1989 his father ran away from the house. People used to take advantage of his mental condition and cheat him. After marriage his mental condition worsened. On examination, he was found suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The patient had visual hallucination (seeing images of wife and children). He was brought to hospital 25 times as above. Par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 964

IMPORTANT POINTThe totality of circumstances proved in this case show that the murder of his wife by the appellant was not as a result of extreme anger but unsoundness of mind within the exception of Section 84 of IPC hence the conviction of appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentence cannot be sustained.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
The totality of circumstances proved in this case show that the murder of his wife by the appellant was not as a result of extreme anger but unsoundness of mind within the exception of Section 84 of IPC hence the conviction of appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentence cannot be sustained.