2023 Supreme(SC) 89

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Prakash Nayi @ Sen – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2010 of 2010
Decided On : 12-01-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mental insanity of accused – Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to applicability of provision – Mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing nature of act.
(2) An act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention – Burden of proof does lie on accused to prove to satisfaction of Court that one is insane while doing act prohibited by law.
(3) Murder – Mental insanity of accused – There was no motive and overt act attributed – Mere fact that appellant subsequently became fit to face trial is sufficient enough to render order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Mental insanity of accused – Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to applicability of provision – Mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing nature of act – Such a person is incapable of knowing nature of said act – Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law – Element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission – Test is from point of view of a prudent man – 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, test is one of legal insanity to attract mandate of Section 84 of IPC – There must be inability of a person in knowing nature of act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to law. (Paras 4 and 5)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105 – Mental insanity of accused – An act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention – It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention – A person of unsound mind who is incapable of knowing consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong – He may not even know that he has committed that act – When such is position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment – This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society – He stands as a victim in need of help and cannot be charged and tried for an offence – Burden of proof does lie on accused to prove to satisfaction of Court that one is insane while doing act prohibited by law – Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf – Extent of probability is one of preponderance – Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether act was done by a person with an unsound mind within rigour of Section 84 of IPC. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 84 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 329 – Murder – Mental insanity of accused – Conviction and sentence – If a friendly approach is required to be followed during trial, when adequate powers have been conferred upon Court to even discharge an accused on the ground of an unsound mind, same reasoning will have to be applied with much force when it comes to Section 84 of IPC – There was no motive and overt act attributed – Mere fact that appellant subsequently became fit to face trial is sufficient enough to render order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity – Appellant has recovered fully and mixed well with society – Conviction and sentence of appellant punishable under Section 302 of IPC set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 17, 21, 27, 28, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

Raising the plea of insanity on the mandate of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, appellant seeks reversal of the order of conviction passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, confirming order of Additional Sessions Judge, S.G. Margao-II, convicting appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

Trial Court and High Court were influenced by the nature of act while ignoring the condition of appellant and the fact that the burden on accused is one of preponderance of probability.

Result : Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.