Back
1992 Supreme(Ori) 131
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, D. M. PATNAIK
AJAYA MAHAKUD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
J. CRI. A. 36 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/02/1992
A.S.Naidu, G.K.MOHANTY
A person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 84 IPC - INTERPRETATION - UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND - LEGAL TEST - BURDEN OF PROOF - INSANITY - MEANING - DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSANITY AND MEDICAL INSANITY - TESTS TO DETERMINE UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND - APPLICATION OF SECTION 84 TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE - HELD, ACCUSED WAS INSANE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE AND HENCE PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 84, IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Ajaya Mahakud, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for pushing a 4-year-old child into a fire, resulting in his death. The accused pleaded insanity at the time of the offense, claiming he was not in his senses and could not remember what happened.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was insane at the time of the offense and hence protected under Section 84 of the IPC. The court held that the accused had bitten the child's cheek, kept him pressed in the fire with his foot on his neck, tried to assault the child's father with a stick, shouted that he had killed the child and would kill others, and continued shouting that he would kill when he was being taken to the police station. The court found that there was no evidence of deliberation or preparation, the act was accompanied by manifestations of unnatural and fiendish brutality, and there was no evidence of a desire to conceal the crime. The court also found that the accused did not show consciousness of his guilt by acts like running away from the scene or trying to avoid detection, and he did not offer any false excuses or make any false statements when arrested.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused was insane at the time of the offense and hence protected under Section 84 of the IPC? 2. Whether the accused's behavior and actions at the time of the offense indicated unsoundness of mind?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused was insane at the time of the offense and hence protected under Section 84 of the IPC. The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The burden of proof rests on the accused to prove his insanity, but it is not as onerous as the burden on the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act with which he is charged. * 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. * Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act and the law. * The prosecution has not to establish these facts. * The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this Section should be given or not is the material time when the offence takes place. * If at that moment a man is found to be labouring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of the act he was doing or that, even if he know it, he did not know it was either wrong or contrary to law then this Section must be applied.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. The court directed that the accused be lodged at the Circle Jail, Sambalpur, and treated for active symptoms at V. S. S. Medical College Hospital, Burla. The court also directed that the accused be kept under the treatment of a psychiatrist appointed in the Circle Jail, Sambalpur, until he is certified to be mentally fit by the psychiatrist.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) IN this appeal from District Jail, Sundargarh, Ajaya Mahakud (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh.
( 2 ) ACCUSATION of the gruesome and cruel Act which led to the trial of the accused is as follows : on the night of 29-10-1987, the accused pushed a young child of about 4 years into fire which resulted in his death. The deceased was the son of one Biswanath Behera who had developed some intimacy with the accused, during his stay in village Kasia for about a month, where he had gone for preparing tiles. After Biswanath returned from Kasia, the accused came and stayed in his house, as he expressed that he was not feeling well. On 28-10-1987 his nephew Suren, and one Nilakantha Naik came from village Kasia in search of the accused. They all took food in the night of occurrence. As sufficient space was not there, Suren and Nilakantha stayed in the house of one Krishna Behera who had his house near the house of Biswanath. Since it was a cold night, fire was burning in the fire place. At about 11 p. m. the accused started murmuring and told Biswanath that he was not feeling well and his nephew and the other man should be called. Biswanath went to Krushna's house to call them. Within a few minutes thereafter, when they all came, they saw the accused placing the deceased child on the burning fire by holding his legs. When they wanted to rescue the child from the fire, the accused wanted to assault Biswanath by means of a lathi. Several persons assembled there and the accused was taken to control and brought from inside the house and was detained. In the process of his struggling to escape, he sustained injuries on his head. The child was immediately shifted to Joda Hospital for treatment and the matter was reported at Koida Police Station by Nilakantha Behera, the uncle of Biswanath. While under treatment at Joda Hospital, the child died on 30-10-1987. Investigation was undertaken and the accused faced trial. In order to establish its case, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
( 3 ) THE accused took a plea of innocence. He, however, pleaded that he was not in senses and cannot say as to what happened. He admitted that he stayed in the house of Biswanath on the night of occurrence. During trial the plea of unsoundness of mind was pressed into service. In other words, it was pleaded that the benefit of Section 84, IPC was to be extended.
( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge did not accept the plea and placing reliance on the evidence of the P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5, who claimed to have witnessed part of the occurrence, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the accused has urged that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was not correct. While coming to the conclusion that there was no material in support of unsoundness of mind of the accused, he should have referred to the evidence which reflected that the behaviour of the accused was abnormal, and that was indicative of unsoundness of mind. The learned counsel for State has, however, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that protection under Section 84, IPC was not available.
( 6 ) SECTION 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the Indian Penal Code. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression 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. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with lega
