2007 Supreme(SC) 871

2007(4) Supreme 627
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh — Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1313 of 2006
Decided on : 04-06-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : C.N. Sree Kumar (A.C.), Advocate.
For the Respondent : Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shashwat Gupta and Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility.
In case of claim of insanity the burden on the accused is no higher than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding.
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. 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.
It would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime.

Headnote:Words and phrases – “Unsoundness of mind” – The expression as used in section 84, has not been defined in the IPC and is mainly treated 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. (Para 7)

       Indian Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 105 – A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity – The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act with which he is charged – The burden on the accused is no higher than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding. (Para 7)

       AIR 1964 SC 1563 – Relied upon.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself – He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, 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 – 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. (Para 8)

       Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 84 – 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). (Para 10)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – The benefit of this provision 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 if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied – However, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime – Mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the offence – Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84. (Para 11)

       1972 Cr.LJ 1523 (SC) – Relied upon.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Because of abnormal behaviour appellant was under treatment, after which he remained mentally fit for about four years – During trial also pursuant to Court’s order he was sent for treatment and his conduct was normal thereafter – In the circumstances, the present case is not one where the protection under Section 84 IPC can be applied. (Paras 13 and 14)

       Facts of the case :

       On 26.8.1995 at about 8 a.m. Mithu Singh heard the scream that “run run he will kill her”. On hearing the scream he rushed towards the house of appellant where Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, Smt. Nand Kanwar, Smt. Jagdish Kanwar and Smt. Mohan Kanwar were shouting loudly. Smt. Phool Kanwar told him that the accused is beating his wife. It was found by the informant on looking inside from the roof top that the accused was carrying a sickle in one hand and the chopped head of Smt. Govind Kanwar (the ‘deceased’) in other hand. The sickle was blood stained and the blood was flowing on the floor from the body. Number of other persons including Ram Singh and Chain Singh came to the spot. Sohanlal and Udai Singh who belonged to the police force also reached at the spot. Constable Udai Singh climbed up to the roof and looked into the house. He also found that the accused was standing in the house with the chopped head of a lady in one hand and a blood stained sickle in the other hand. With efforts made by the people present at the spot, door was unbolted by the accused and he was arrested by the police.

       Information was lodged at Partap Garh police station at about 8.30 p.m. After investigation charge sheet was filed. To further prosecution version 15 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge also examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Five witnesses resiled from their statements made during investigation. However, considering the evidence on record the trial court found the evidence to be credible and cogent and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-Gajraj Singh. During trial a plea was taken that the accused was of unsound mind and, therefore, entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC. Same was rejected by trial Court. The High Court also found that the plea regarding applicability of Section 84 IPC was not acceptable. It found that though some of the witnesses stated about the accused suffering from unsoundness of mind, the crucial question was whether at the time of commission of offence the accused was incapable to understand the nature of the act committed by him or suffered from insanity and had to be given protection under Section 84 IPC. The High Court found that Section 84 IPC has correctly been applied.

       Findings of case :

       Alleged insanity not covered by principles governing Section 84, IPC accused in not entitled to its protection.