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

2008 Supreme(MP) 919

2008(3) JLJ 160
(SUPREME COURT)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2007 : against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of M.P, Jabalpur;
Decided on 29.8.2008.

Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.84, 302 and 201 -- unusual behaviour and lack of motive -- not sufficient to attract protection under section 84.

       Shyamlal got up around 3-3:30 after hearing the shouting of his son-in-law who was pushing his door. Then accused ran towards him to beat and in fact beat Shyamlal with the lathi which he was carrying in his hand. Shyamlal ran away and went to the house of Baldan. After sometime he observed that his house was burning. Then he came running towards his house and conveyed the same to the villagers. When he went along with villagers to his house then the villagers Mulloo Singh, Chamru Singh, etc. caught hold of accused Hari Singhand they observed that there was a fire in the room where Harilal, the father-in-law of Shyamlal was sleeping and his father-in-law was burnt and had died. Motilal, the father of Shyamlal told him that Hari Singh had slapped him on his cheek and had also kicked him at his back and by taking lathi, trishul he ran after him, then he also ran away. Then accused started beating deceased Harilal with stick and accused hit Harilal several times due to which Harilal died. Then accused put some grains on fire which were lying in that room, due to which not only the house caught the fire but Harilal was also burnt. [Para 2

       In the present appeal it was submitted that the unusual behaviour of the accused has been stated by even the eye-witnesses PW2 and PW4 and, therefore, the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the plea of protection under section 84 of the Act. [Para 3

       Held: 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. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime ... The law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man‘s mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficient to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section ... Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under section 84. [Para 9

       The trial Court and the High Court have, on the facts of the case, rightly held that section 84 IPC has no application. [Para 11

       (2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the 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 that even if he did know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law. [Para 9

       (3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- mere fact that no motive has been proved for murder or the fact that accused made no attempt to run -- would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the offence. 1972 CrLJ 1523 (SC) relied on. [Para 9

       (4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- previous insanity proved or admitted -- considerations -- whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in manner showing desire to conceal; whether offender showed consciousness of guilt after crime and made efforts to avoid detection; whether he offered false excuses and made false statements -- these tests are not always reliable where there is inferential insanity. [Para 5

       (5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility -- Court is concerned with legal insanity, not with medical insanity. [Para 5

       (6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.105 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- burden to prove insanity -- rests on accused -- it is not so onerous as that upon prosecution -- burden on accused is no higher than that resting upon plaintiff or defendant in civil proceeding. AIR 1964 SC 1563 relied on. [Para 5

       (7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.105 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss.156 and 157 -- previous history of insanity revealed during investigation -- it is the duty of investigator to subject accused to medical examination and place that evidence before Court -- not doing so creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt goes to accused -- onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to conduct of accused shortly prior to offence and at the time of or immediately afterwards -- also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. [Para 6

       (8) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- accused is protected not only when he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act on account of insanity, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself -- he is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and vice versa. [Para 6

       (9) Practice -- every person is presumed to know natural consequences of his act -- every person is also presumed to know law -- prosecution does not have to establish these facts. [Para 6

       (10) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- four kinds of persons may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind) : -

       (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos by illness; (3) a lunatic or a mad man; and (4) one who is drunk. An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like (see Archbold‘s Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn. pp.31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn. Vol.1, p.105; 1 Hale‘s Pleas of the Crown 34). A person made non compos mentis by illness is execused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under the influence of his disorder (see 1 Hala‘s PC 30). A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason (see Russell, 12 Edn. Vol.1, p.103; Hala‘s PC 31). Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity. [Para 7

       (11) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e., actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention) -- in order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur -- in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla voluntas est). [Para 8

       (12) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs congnitive faculties of mind can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen‘s History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol.II, p.166 relied on. [Para 9

       (13) Words and Phrases -- ‘lucid interval of an insane person‘ -- is not merely a cessation of violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act -- but it does not necessarily mean complete or prefect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition -- merely a cessation of violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient to make it a legal act. [Para 9

       (14) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.84 -- legal insanity -- test to be applied:

       The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. [Para 10

       ¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84] 302 rFkk 201 && vlkekU; O;ogkj vkSj gsrq dk vHkko && /kkjk 84 ds v/khu Qk;nk vkdf‘kZr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ughaA

       yxHkx 3&3%30 cts vius nkekn dh] tks njoktk /kdsy jgk Fkk] fpYykgV lqu dj ‘;keyky tkxkA rc vfHk;qDr mls ihVus ds fy, mldh vksj nkSM+k rFkk okLro esa mlus ‘;keyky dks ml ykBh ls ihVk tks og gkFk esa fy, Fkk] ‘;keyky Hkkx vkSj cynu ds ?kj x;kA dqN le; i‘pkr~ mlus ns[kk fd mldk ?kj ty jgk FkkA rc og vius ?kj dh vksj nkSM+k vkSj xk¡o okyksa dks crk;kA xk¡o okyksa ds lkFk tc og vius ?kj igq¡pk rc eqYyw flag] pe: flag vkfn xzkeokfl;ksa us vfHk;qDr gjhflag dks idM+k vkSj mUgksaus ns[kk fd ml dejs esa vkx yxh Fkh ftlesa ‘;keyky dk llqj gjhyky lks;k Fkk rFkk mldk llqj ty x;k Fkk vkSj mldh e`R;q gks xbZ FkhA ‘;keyky ds firk eksrhyky us mls crk;k fd gjhflag us mlds xky ij pk¡Vk ekjk mldh ihB ij ykr ekjh rFkk ykBh vkSj f=‘kwy ys dj mlds ihNs nkSM+k] rc og Hkh Hkkx x;kA rc vfHk;qDr e`r gjhyky dks ykBh ls ekjus yxk] vfHk;qDr us gjhyky dks vusd ckj ekjk ftlds dkj.k gjhyky dh e`R;q gks xbZA fQj vfHk;qDr us ml /kU; esa vkx yxk nh tks ?kj esa iM+k Fkk ftlds dkj.k u dsoy ?kj esa vkx yx xbZ] vfirq gjhyky Hkh ty x;kA ¿ iSjk 2

       izLrqr vihy esa ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr ds vlkekU; O;ogkj ds laca/k esa izR;{kn‘khZ lk{khx.k v lk 2 rFkk v lk 4 }kjk Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS vkSj blfy,] fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 84 ds v/khu laj{k.k dk vfHkokd~ [kkfjt fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha FkkA ¿ iSjk 3

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g fofuf‘pr fd, tkus ds fy, fd bl /kkjk dk Qk;nk iznku fd;k tk, ;k ugha] fu.kZ;d le; og rkfRod le; gS tc vijk/k fd;k tkrk gSA bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus ds fy, lqlaxr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,] ek= vijk/k dh izd`fr ij ls ful`r rdksZa ds vk/kkj ij mUekn dh izfrj{kk Lohdkj dh tkuk [krjukd gksxkA ---- d`r dh izd`fr le>us dh v{kerk ds vfrfjDr fof/k esa dqN Hkh ekU; ugha gS rFkk mi/kkj.kk dh tkrh gS fd tgk¡ O;fDr dk efLr‘d ;k mldh rdZ.kk dh {kerk ;g le>us ds fy, i;kZIr gs fd og D;k dj jgk gS] ogk¡ lnSo ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tkuk gksxh fd mlus tks dk;Z fd;k mldk ifj.kke mlds }kkjk vk‘kf;r FkkA vijk/k fdruk Hkh u`‘kal D;ksa u gks] mlds gsrq ds vHkko ek= ls] fof/kd ikxyiu ds vfHkokd~ vkSj lcwr ds vHkko esa] ekeyk bl /kkjk ds v/khu ugha vkrkA ---- efLr‘d dh vlkekU;r;k ;k vkaf‘kd foHkze] vizfrjks/; euksosx ;k euksjksxh ds ck/;dkjh O;ogkj ek= ls /kkjk 84 ds v/khu laj{k.k izkIr ugha gksrkA ¿ iSjk 9

       fopkj.k U;k;ky; vkSj mPp U;k;ky; us ekeys ds rF;ksa ij us Bhd&gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 84 ykxw ugha gksrhA ¿ iSjk 11

       ¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && Qk;nk ;g lkfcr djus ds i‘pkr~ gh miyC/k gksrk gS fd d`R; djrs le; vfHk;qDr efLr‘d ds jksx ds dkj.k rdZ.kk dh ,slh =qfV ls xzLr Fkk fd mls ml d`R; dh izd`fr ;k xq.k dk Kku ugha Fkk tks og dj jgk Fkk] ;k fQj ;fn mls ;g Kku Fkk rc ;g Kku ugha Fkk fd og xyr gS ;k fof/k ds izfrdwy gSA ¿ iSjk 9

       ¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && ek= bl rF; ls fd gR;k ds fy, dksbZ gsrq lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS vFkok vfHk;qDr us Hkkxus dk iz;Ru ugha fd;k && ;g minf‘kZr ugha gksxk fd og ikxy Fkk ;k mldh vijk/k ds fy, vko‘;d vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr ugha FkhA 1972 fØ ,y ts 1523 ¼,l lh½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9

       ¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && iwoZrj ikxyiu lkfcr ;k Lohd`r && fopj.kh; ckrsa && D;k d`R; ds fy, fopkj&foe‘kZ vkSj rS;kjh Fkh( D;k og ,slh jhfr esa fd;k x;k Fkk ftlls fNikus dk vk‘k; nf‘kZr gksrk gS( D;k vijk/kh us vijk/k ds i‘pkr~ nksf"krk dk Hkku nf‘kZr fd;k rFkk idM+s tkus ls cpus ds iz;kl fd,( D;k mlus feF;k cgkus cuk, vkSj feF;k dFku fd, && ;g dlkSfV;k¡ ogk¡ lnSo voyacuh; ugha gksrha tgk¡ vuqekufl) ikxyiu gksA ¿ iSjk 5

       ¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && izR;sd O;fDr ftls ekufld jksx gS Lo;eso gh nkafMd mÙkjnkf;Ro ls NwV izkIr ugha gksrk && U;k;ky; dk ljksdkj fof/kd ikxyiu ls gS] fpfdRlh; ikxyiu ls ughaA ¿ iSjk 5

       ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 105 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && ikxyiu lkfcr djus dk Hkkj && vfHk;qDr ij gksrk gS && og bruk Hkkjh ugha gS ftruk vfHk;kstui{k dk gksrk gS && vfHk;qDr ij tks Hkkj gS og mlls vf/kd ugha gS tks flfoy dk;Zokgh esa oknh ;k izfroknh ij gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1563 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5

       ¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 105 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 rFkk 157 && vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ikxyiu dk iwoZrj bfrgkj mn~?kfVr && vUos‘kd dk drZO; gS fd og vfHk;qDr dk LokLF; ijh{k.k djk, vkSj og lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k j[ks && ,slk ugha djus ls vfHk;kstu ds ekeyk xaHkhj ‘kSfFkY; ls xzLr gks tkrk gS vkSj vfHk;qDr dk lansg dk Qk;nk izkIr gksrk gS && vijk/k ds dqN le; iwoZ rFkk vijk/k ds le; ;k mlds rqjar i‘pkr~ vfHk;qDr ds vkpj.k ds laca/k esa lk{; is‘k dj bl Hkkj ls mUeqDr gksuk gksrk gS && mldh ekufld n‘kk ds lk{; vkSj vU; lqlaxr dkjdksa }kjk HkhA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && vfHk;qDr dsoy rc lajf{kr ugha gksrk tc og ikxyiu ds dkj.k d`R; dh izd`fr tkuus esa l{ke gks] vfirq rc Hkh lajf{kr gksrk tc mls ;g Kku ugha gks fd d`R; xyr Fkk ;k ;g fd og fof/k ds izfrdwy Fkk] Hkys&gh mls d`R; dh izd`fr dk Kku gks && rFkkfi] og rc lajf{kr ugha gksrk tc mls Kkr gks fd og tks dj jgk gS og xyr gS] Hkys&gh mls ;g Kkr ugha gks fd og fof/k ds izfrdwy gS] rFkk blds foijhr ifjfLFkfr esa Hkh og lajf{kr ugha gksrkA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼9½ izFkk && izR;sd O;fDr dks vius d`R; ds uSlfxZd ifj.kke dk Kku gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tkrh gS && izR;sd O;fDr dks fof/k dk Kku gksus dh Hkh mi/kkj.kk dh tkrh gS && vfHk;kstu i{k dks ;g rF; LFkkfir ugha djuk gksrsA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼10½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && pkj izdkj ds O;fDr;ksa dks fod`rfpr dgk tk ldrk gS %

       ¼1½ tM+( ¼2½ tks O;kf/k ds dkj.k fod`rfpÙk gks x;k gks( ¼3½ ikxy ;k fof{kIr O;fDr( rFkk ¼4½ tks eÙk gksA tM+ og O;fDr gksrk gS tks tUe ls] ‘kk‘or chekjh ds dkj.k] LoLFk varjkyksa ds fcuk] xSj&LoLFkfpÙk Le`fr dk gS] rFkk mUgsa tM+ dgk tkrk gS tks chl rd ugha fxu ldrs] ;k lIrkg ds fnu ugha crk ldrs] ;k tks vius firk ;k ekrk dks ugha tkurs] ;k mlh izdkj ds ¿ vkpZcksYM d`r fØfeuy IyhfMaXl~] ,foMsUl ,aM izSfDVl] rSarhlok¡ laLdj.k] i`"B 31&32] jly d`r ØkbEl ,aM felfMehulZ] ckjgok¡ laLdj.k] ftYn 1] i`"B 105] 1 gsYl Iyht vkQ n Økmu 34 ns[ksa ÀA chekjh ds dkj.k fod`rfpÙk gks x;k O;fDr nkafMd ekeyksa esa mu d`R;ksa ds fy, NwV izkIr djrk gS tks mlus vius fopkj jksx ds izHkko ds v/khu jgrs gq, fd, ¿ 1 gsYl ih lh 30 ns[ksa ÀA ikxy og O;fDr gksrk gS tks dsoy dqN vof/k;ksa vkSj mrkj&p<+ko ds nkSjku ftlesa foosd ds varjky gksrs gSa] ekufld fodkj jksx ls xzLr gksrk gS ¿ jly] ckjgok¡ laLdj.k] ftYn 1] i`"B 103] gsYl ih lh 31 ns[ksa ÀA fof{kIrrk LFkk;h gksrh gSA ikxyiu vkSj fof{kIrrk dks vftZr ikxyiu dgk tkrk gS rFkk tM+rk dks uSlfxZd ikxyiuA ¿ iSjk 7

       ¼11½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && nakfMd fof/k dk ewy fl)kar blesa lekfo"V gS fd d`R; ls nksf"krk ugha curh tc rd fd og nks‘k;qDr vk‘k; ls ugha fd;k x;k gks && vijk/k la?kfVr djus ds fy, vk‘k; vkSj d`R; ,d&lkFk gksuk pkfg, && ikxy O;fDr;ksa ds ekeys esa mu ij nksf"krk vkjksfir ugha dh tkrh D;ksafd mudh Lora= bPNk ugha gksrhA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼12½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && dsoy ogh fod`rfpÙkrk nkafMd mÙkjnkf;Ro ls NwV dk vk/kkj xfBr dj ldrh gS ftlls LokHkkfodr% efLr‘d dh KkukRed ekufld ‘kfDr {kh.k gks tkrh gSA LVhQu d`r fgLVªh vkQ n fØfeuy yk vkQ baXySaM] ftYn 2] i`"B 166 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9

       ¼13½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ^ikxy O;fDr dk LokLF; varjky* && fodkj jksx ds fgalz y{k.kksa dk fojke ek= ugha gS] vfirq ekufld {kerkvksa dk ,slk iqu%LFkkiu gS ftlls O;fDr d`R; dk vkdyu djus esa i;kZIr :i ls l{ke gks tk, && ijarq bldk vko‘;d vFkZ ekufld lerkvksa dk mudh ewy n‘kk esa iw.kZ vFkok v=qV iqu%LFkkiu ugha gS && fodkj jksx ds fgalz y{k.kksa dk fojke ek= mls fof/k d`R; cukus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 9

       ¼14½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && fof/k ikxyiu && dlkSVh %

       ykxw fd;k tkus okyk ekunaM ;g gS fd D;k ;qfDr;qDr O;fDr;ksa }kjk vaxhdkj fd, tkus okys lkekU; ekunaM ds vuqlkj d`R; lgh gS ;k xyrA ek= ;g rF; fd vfHk;qDr naHkh gS] fofp= gS] fpM+fpM+k gS vkSj mldk eu fcYdqy Bhd ugha gS] vFkok ;g fd ftu ‘kkjhfjd vkSj ekufld O;kf/k;ksa ls og xzLr gS muls mldh fopkj‘kfDr nqcZy gks xbZ gS vkSj mldh Hkkouk,¡ ,oa bPNk izHkkfor gks xbZ gSa] vFkok ;g fd mlus igys dqN vlkekU; gjdrsa dh Fkha vFkok ;g fd mls FkksM+s&FkksM+s varjky ij ikxyiu ds ckj&ckj nkSjs iM+rs gSa] vFkok ;g fd mls fexhZ ds nkSjs iM+rs Fks ijarq mlds O;ogkj esa dqN vizlkekU; ugha gS vFkok ;g fd mldk O;ogkj vthr gS] bl /kkjk dks vkd`‘V djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gks ldrkA ¿ iSjk 10

JUDGMENT

Dr. Pasayat, J. -- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur confirming the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "the IPC") as recorded by learned Sessions Judge Mandla in Sessions Case No.66 of 1995 who imposed sentences of imprisonment for life and three years respectively.

2. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, during trial are as follows :

Harilal Gond (hereinafter referred to as the • deceased') was the maternal grandfather-in-law of the accused and in the night of incident accused, deceased and his samdhi Motilal were sleeping in the same house. Shyamlal (PW1); son-in-law of the deceased, brought his son-in-law, i.e., accused Hari Singh on 23.2.1995 to Mohda from Singanpuri for treatment on 25.2.1995 in the evening Motilal (PW2) the father of Shyamlal and his Samdhi i.e. deceased and son-in-law i.e. accused Harisingh were sleeping in the same room after having their meal. Shyamlal alone was sleeping in his room. Shyamlal got up around 3-3:30 after hearing the shouting of his son-in-law who was pushing his door. Then accused ran towards him to beat and in fact beat Shyamlal with the lathi which he was carrying in his hand. Shyamlal ran away and went to the house of Baldan. After sometime he observed that his house was burning. Then he came running towards his house and conveyed the same to the villagers. When he went along with villagers to his house then the villagers Mulloo Singh, Chamru Singh etc. caught hold of accused Hari Singh had they observed that there was a fire in the room where Harilal the father-in-law of Shyamlal was sleeping and his father-in-law was burnt and had died. Motilal the father of the Shyamlal told him that Hari Singh had slapped him on his cheek and had also kicked him at his back and by taking lathi, trishul he ran after him, then he also ran away. Then accused started beating deceased Harilal with stick and accused hit Harilal several times due to which Harilal died. Then accused put some grains on fire which were lying in that room, due to which not only the house caught the fire but Harilal was also burnt. The incident was reported by Shyamlal in writing to Police Chowki Maneri of Police Station Bija Dandi at 9:00 a.m. in the morning and the report is EX.P-l. On conducting the post-mortem of Harilal, the whole dead body was found to have been burnt, there were many injuries on his body and there was fracture in the head and all the injuries were ante-mortem. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Since accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. The trial Court relied on the evidence of eye-witness Motilal (PW2) while Kalibai (PW4) corroborated the statement of eye-witness about the unusual behaviour of the accused.

The trial Court found the evidence to be cogent and accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as noted above. It did not accept the plea that section 84 IPC has application. In appeal before the High Court the stand about unsoundness of mind and protection under section 84 IPC was pressed into service. The prosecution on the other hand submitted that section 84 has no relevance or application. High Court accepted State's stand and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

3. In the present appeal it was submitted that the unusual behaviour of the accused has been stated by even the eye-witnesses PW2 and PW 4 and, therefore, the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the plea of protection under section 84 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court.

5. 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 IPC. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" itself

























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top