Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 135
ORISSA HIGH COURT
N. K. DAS, J.
SURYA PRASAD ROUT
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA
Criminal Revn. No. 2 of 1980,
Decided on : 3 -12 -1981.
A person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, cannot be held criminally liable for his actions.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT MURDER - SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INSANITY AS A DEFENSE - SECTIONS 84, 104, 105, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF - LEGAL INSANITY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder a 15-year-old girl by stabbing her with a knife. The motive was that the petitioner wanted to marry the girl, but she refused. The petitioner claimed that he was insane at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had assaulted the girl with a knife. However, the court also found that the petitioner had raised a reasonable doubt about his sanity at the time of the incident. The court considered the petitioner's history of mental illness, his behavior before and after the incident, and the lack of a clear motive for the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had attempted to murder the girl. 2. Whether the petitioner had established a defense of insanity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had committed the actus reus of attempted murder. However, the court also held that the petitioner had raised a reasonable doubt about his mens rea, as he had presented evidence that he was insane at the time of the incident. The court applied the principles of legal insanity as set out in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 104 and 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and acquitted the petitioner on the ground of insanity.
JUDGEMENT
Petitioner has been convicted under S.307, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years on the allegation that he attempted to commit murder by stabbing knife (sic) on P.W. 2, a girl aged 15 years but was unsuccessful in his attempt. The motive is that the petitioner persuaded the victim girl to marry him but the girl refused.
2. Prosecution case is that the parents of the victim girl (P.W. 2) work as doctors in the Sundargarh District Headquarters Hospital. The petitioner was residing in the house of his sister who happens to be a nurse in the hospital, whose quarter is nearby the quarters of parents of P.W. 2. On 8-5-1978 in the morning at about 8 A.M. P.W. 2 went to the school and returned half an hour after with some of her friends including P.W. 5 to her house. P.W. 2 went to a short distance to see off her friends and while she was returning the petitioner came from a nearby place in a threatening attitude and while P.W. 2 was proceeding hurriedly towards the quarter, the petitioner caught hold of her left hand and stabbed a knife on her right stomach, waist and P.W. 2 fell down when the petitioner gave some blows on her face. P.W. 2 was taken to the hospital where P.W. 1, the doctor examined and treated her. It is further alleged that the petitioner went to Sundargarh Sadar Police Station and before the Officer-in-charge (PW 8) and in presence of P.W. 6 produced the knife (M.O. I) which was seized by the Investigating Officer.
The defence plea is complete denial of the incident but the petitioner has admitted that prior to the occurrence. P.W. 2 used to come to his house for lessons and he was treating her as his younger sister. He never gave any proposal for marriage. He has taken further plea of insanity at the time of occurrence.
3. The courts below have come to the conclusion that the prosecution story as to assault on P.W. 2 has been proved and the plea of insanity of the petitioner cannot be accepted and accordingly the petitioner has been convicted.
4. P.W. 2 is the victim girl and P.W. 3 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 3 has narrated the incident immediately after the occurrence to P.W. 4. The evidence of P.W. 2 is corroborated not only by the doctor. P.W. 1 as to the existence of the injuries on her body by means of a knife but also by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.W. 5 is the friend of P.W. 2 who narrated the fact that she had gone with P.W. 2 to the house of her parents and P.W. 2 came back to leave her at some distance. After going through the evidence, I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish that the petitioner has assaulted P.W. 2 by means of a knife which he produced before the Investigating Officer at the Police Station shortly after the occurrence. The knife has also been seized in presence of P.W. 6. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the story of assault on P.W. 2 by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has taken the plea of insanity. According to S.84 of the I.P.C., nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 472), it has been held that when a plea of legal insanity is setup, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is that time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of S.84 of I.P.C. can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. According to S.105 of the
