SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Del) 22

MALIK SHARIEF-UD-DIN, R.N.AGGARWAL
NANNEY KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration is as to whether the accused - will be entitled to the benefit of exception under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. We may notice the law on the subject which is very clear. The legal conception of insanity differs considerably from the medical conception. It is not every form of sanity or madness that is recognised by law as a sufficient excuse. The best law on the subject we may notice is embodied in the case of Daniel Me Maghten. The learned Judges in that case inter-alia laid down as under :

"every man is to be presumed to be same and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their jury s satisfaction, and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party 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, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. "

( 2 ) SECTION 84 Indian Penal Code has incorporated this definition of unsoundness of mind and in a catena of judgments th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top