Back
2007 Supreme(MP) 569
(SUPREME COURT)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2006; Decided on 4.6.2007.
C.N. Sreekumar, Amicus Curiae for appellant; Naveen Kumar Singh for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- applicability -- accused must be proved to be suffering from insanity at the time of commission of crime. [Para 3]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- grandfather and uncle of accused suffered from insanity -- not sufficient to attract the provision. [Para 4]
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- term "insanity -- has no precise definition -- it is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder -- every person who is mentally diseased is not exempted from criminal responsibility. [Para 7]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- insanity -- distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity -- Court is concerned with legal insanity. [Para 7]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 105 -- burden to prove insanity -- lies upon accused -- such burden is not higher than upon plaintiff or defendant in civil proceedings. AIR 1964 SC 1563 relied on. [Para 7]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- accused is not protected only when he was incapable of knowing nature of the act but also when he did not know either the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law. [Para 8]
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- provision under -- embodies fundamental maxim of criminal law -- i.e. an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. [Para 10]
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 8 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 84 -- absence of motive -- cannot bring the case under S. 84 of the Code in absence of plea and proof of legal insanity. (1973) 4 SCC 79 relied on. [Para 11]
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && ykxw gksuk && vijk/k djus ds le; mUeRrrk ls xzLr gksuk vfHk;qDr }kjk lkfcr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 3½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && vfHk;qDr ds firkeg rFkk pkpk mUeRrrk ls xzLr && mica/k vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ughaA ¼iSjk 4½
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && ‘‘kCn ÞmUeRrrkß && lqfuf‘pr ifjHkk"kk ugha gS && ;g ‘‘kCn ekufld fodkj dh ifjorhZ voLFkk dks of.kZr djus ds fy, iz;qDr fd;k tkrk gS & izR;sd ekufld jksxh O;fDr vkijkf/kd nkf;Ro ls eqDr ugha gSA ¼iSjk 7½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && mUeRrrk && fof/kd mUeRrrk vkSj fpfdRlh; mUeRrrk esa foHksn fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && U;k;ky; dk ljksdkj fof/kd mUeRrrk ls gSA ¼iSjk 7½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 105 && mUeRrrk lkfcr djus dk Hkkj && vfHk;qDr ij gS && ,slk Hkkj flfoy dk;Zokfg;ksa esa oknh vFkok izfroknh ij Hkkj ls vf/kd ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1563 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && vfHk;qDr dsoy rHkh ljaf{kr ugha gS tc og dk;Z dh izd`fr tkus esa vleFkZ gks vfirq rc Hkh gS tc og ugha tkurk gks fd dk;Z ;k rks xyr Fkk vFkok og fof/k ds izfrdwy FkkA ¼iSjk 8½
¼7½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && ds v/khu mica/k && mlesa nkafMd fof/k dk ewy lw= lfUufoV gS && vFkkZr fdlh dk;Z ls nks"k xfBr ugha gksrk tc rd fd og nks"kh vk‘k; ls u fd;k x;k gksA ¼iSjk 10½
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 8 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 84 && gsrq dk vHkko && vfHkokd~ rFkk fof/kd mUeRrrk ds lcwr ds vHkko esa ekeyk lafgrk dh /kkjk 84 ds v/khu ugha yk;k tk ldrkA ¼1973½4 ,l lh lh 79 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 11½
Pasayat, J. -- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine for Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. The order of conviction was recorded by the learned Special Judge SC/ST, (Prevention of Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Partap Garh, Rajasthan.
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
On 26.8.1995 at about 8 a.m. Mithu Singh (PW 1) heard the scream that "run run he will kill her". On hearing the scream he rushed towards the house of the appellant where Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, Smt. Nand Kanwar, Smt. Jagdish Kanwar and Smt. Mohan Kanwar were shouting loudly. Smt. Phool Kanwar told him that the accused is beating his wife. It was found by the informant on looking inside from the rooftop that the accused was carrying a sickle in one hand and the chopped head of Smt. Govind Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in the other hand. The sickle was bloodstained and blood was flowing on the floor from the body. A number of other persons including Ram Singh and Chain Singh came to the spot. Sohanlal and Udai Singh who belonged to the police force also reached at the spot. Constable Udai Singh climbed up to the roof and looked into the house. He also found that the accused was standing in the house with the chopped head of a lady in one hand and a bloodstained sickle in the other hand. With efforts made by the people present at the spot, door was unbolted by the accused and he was arrested by the police.
3. Information was lodged at Partap Garh Police Station at about 8:30 p.m. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. For further prosecution version 15 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge also examined the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "CrPC"). Five witnesses resiled from their statements made during investigation. However, considering the evidence on record the trial Court found the evidence to be credible and cogent and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused Gajraj Singh. During trial a plea was taken that the accused was of unsound mind and, therefore, entitled to protection under section 84 IPC. Same was rejected by the trial Court. The High Court also found that the plea regarding applicability of section 84 IPC was not acceptable. It found that though some of the witnesses stated about the accused suffering from unsoundness of mind, the crucial question was whether at the time of commission of offence the accused was incapable to understand the nature of the act committed by him or suffered from insanity and had to be given protection under section 84 IPC. The High Court found that section 84 IPC had been applied correctly.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the evidence of some of the witnesses submitted that the police officials themselves wanted protection from the Court, being disturbed by the violent behaviour of the appellant. It was submitted that grandfather and the uncle of the accused suffered from insanity and, therefore, the trial Court and the High Court were not justified in refusing the protection under section 84 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court and as upheld by the High Court. According to him though there is material on record to show that the accused-appellant at some point of time suffered from unsoundness of mind, that is not sufficient to bring in application of section 84 IPC. Additionally, the application filed by the father of the accused was after about one year of the incident.
6. We shall first deal with the question whether section 84 IPC has application to the facts of the case.
