2009 Supreme(Guj) 652

2010 (2) GCD 993 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Dave &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Upadhyaya
Ashaben Naileshbhai Shah
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2001—Decided on 30/12/2009

Point in Issue :
Whether appellant has been able to establish his defence of insanity so as to get benefit under Section 84 IPC.

Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 302 and 84 — Bombay Police Act — Section 135(1) — Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) — Section 105 — Murder — Conviction — Defence of insanity — Appreciation of evidence — Finding as to — The appellant committed the murder of her mother-in-law deceased Manoramaben alleging that she has ruined her life — Prosecution case is that she inflicted blows with a big knife on her body and severed her head from the trunk of her body and beheaded her — The appellant raised defence of insanity and examined six witnesses including medical evidence — Court examined the defence evidence specially medical and held that the appellant has duly established from evidence and inference which could reasonably drawn that appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time — She was under attack of Chronic Schizophrenia — She has successfully establish the circumstances required under Evidence Act so as to get benefit of insanity admissible under Penal Code — The appeal is, therefore, liable to be accepted and appellant to be acquitted.

       Held :

       The appellant in her further statement pleaded her complete ignorance regarding the incriminating circumstances appeared from the evidence of the prosecution and put to her by the trial Court and filed her written statement in support of her further statement and alleged cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and her mother-in-law deceased Manoramaben. She further alleged that her husband and her mother-in-law ill-treated her to such an extent that she would become insane and gradually, in fact, she started behaving like insane and she had to take treatment of Psychiatrist in April 1998. That keeping the appellant and her minor daughter alone in the house, her husband had left the house and thereby she was deserted. In nutshell, the appellant raised defence of insanity. The appellant in support of her defence of insanity examined six defence witnesses and produced medical evidence to that effect. [Para 3]

       In the instant case, it has come on record that father and brother of the appellant were suffering from chronic schizophrenia. Thus, the appellant has a family history of the disease. In the instant case, the appellant was treated for chronic schizophrenia from dated 17.4.1998 till 28.7.1998 viz. prior to the date of the incident. Soon after the commission of the crime, initially the appellant was treated for her injuries in neck because said treatment was required first in point of time. The medical evidence reveals that the injuries which she sustained in her neck were serious injuries and could have proved to be fatal, and on dated 20.1.1999, when her treatment for bodily injury was over, she was treated by Psychiatrist in Government Mental Hospital. [Para 17]

       Furthermore, in the instant case, the manner and method in which the incident occurred, is required to be considered. Soon before the incident, there was a quarrel between herself and her deceased mother-in-law Manoramaben. Appellant alleged that her matrimonial life was ruined by the deceased. The incident occurred in a broad-day light. The incident occurred between 3 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. in the house of the deceased, situated in Gujarat Housing Board. [Para 18]

       Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the defence of unsound mind raised by the appellant is duly established from the evidence and inference can reasonably be drawn that the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. She was under the attack of chronic schizophrenia. Court is, therefore, of the view that the appellant has proved, existence of circumstances as required under Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. In the result, the appeal merits acceptance.

        [Para 21]

       Law Laid Down :

       Though the burden to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind was of the appellant read with Section 105 of Evidence Act but said burden is not as high as that of prosecution to prove.