REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.509 of 2008)

Siddhapal Kamala Yadav …Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of

the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by

the  appellant  who was found  guilty for the  offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No.140 of 2002 and

was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine with

default stipulation.

3. The  prosecution  case  unfolded  through  depositions  of  ASI  Ukhadu

Tadvi (PW-2), hospital nurse Smt. Suman Bhave (PW-3) and guard Bhagwat

Sutar (PW-4), also complaint (Exhibit 18) that was filed by ASI Tadvi,

on behalf of the State.  The incident in question took place on the

night between 18th and 19th July, 2002. To be precise, it took place at

1

about 4.00 a.m. of 19.7.2002, at Ward No.14 of Civil Hospital, Jalgaon,

where the appellant and the victim Dilip Sitaram Chaudhary (hereinafter

referred to as ‘deceased’) were lodged.      

The complainant ASI Tadvi was posted on guard duty at the said

prisoners’ cell in the Civil Hospital.  There were other four policemen

also, along with him, namely, Police Constables Ibrahim, Bhagwat, Gokul

and Police Naik Sattar.  Victim Dilip was admitted for treatment since

14.7.2002.  On 18.7.2002, the appellant was admitted for treatment with

the complaint that he was murmuring to himself, like a lunatic.  Both,

the victim and the appellant, were lodged in Ward No.14 in a common

room. ASI and 4 plicemen were the party on guard, posted at the said

ward.

On the fateful night, there was no electricity supply.  At about

3.30  a.m.  on  19.7.2002,  constable  Gokul  was  on  duty.  Since  it  was

raining,  policemen  occupied  a  location  at  the  ground  floor  of  the

hospital. Gokul alone was in the guardroom, by the side of the prisoners

ward.

At about 4.00 a.m. Police Constable Gokul, on duty, shouted, “Dada

run, there is a noise of violence in the prisoners’ room”.

Consequently, entire guard party rushed to the Wardroom and it was

opened.  As ASI Tadvi entered the room, he was grabbed by the appellant.

However, all policemen managed to control the appellant and again put

him on the bed, where he was asked to sleep on the night with handcuff.

It was noticed at that time that, the appellant had freed himself from

the handcuff.  It was noticed that the co-prisoner was not on the bed,

2

but was hanging from the cot, his leg still was locked to the bed with

the fetter.  Iron stand, used for hanging a saline bottle, was lying by

his side.  It was also noticed that Dilip, the deceased who was hanging

by the side of the cot, had suffered head injury.  The prisoner, who was

caught by the guard and who had escaped from the handcuff, was the

appellant.   In the meanwhile,  electricity supply was  resumed by the

hospital generator.  Nurse Suman (PW-3) had arrived there, who summoned

Resident Medical Officer (in short ‘RMO’).  The RMO and other doctors

then carried the victim Dilip on a stretcher to the room of Casualty

Medical Officer (CMO) Dr. Survade, who, after sometime, informed that

the victim had expired. Intimation to that effect was sent to Zilla Peth

Police Station.

A detailed complaint, narrating these events, was lodged by ASI

Tadvi  to  the  said  Police  Station,  which  was  registered  as  First

Information Report at 08.30 hours and after investigation and committal

of the case, trial, which culminated into impugned judgment before the

High Court, was held.

As already described hereinabove, ASI Tadvi (PW-2), so also nurse

Suman (PW-3) and Police Constable Bhagwat (PW-4), are the persons, who

reached  the  location  in  response  to  call  by  guard  on  duty,  Police

Constable Gokul. Other set of important witnesses is of four doctors.

Dr. Surwade (PW-5), was the CMO, who had reached the location upon call

by nurse Suman.  Dr. Bhalchandra (PW-8) had performed autopsy.  He has

recorded an opinion that, the death was result of head injury sustained

with multiple rib fracture, injuries suffered were sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to result into death and the saline stand

could be the possible weapon for inflicting the injuries.  Dr. Satish

3

Patil (PW-9) and Dr. Subhash Badgujar (PW-10) are the two psychiatrists,

then  attached  to  civil  hospital  and  the  appellant  was  under  their

observation, at the material time.  The prosecution and the trial Court

have laid heavy emphasis on their evidence, in order to counter the

defence of mental illness, raised by the accused.

Rajendra  (PW-1),  is  the  panch  witness  to  inquest  panchnama

(Exh.16),  spot  panchnama  (Exh.  26)  was  drawn  in  presence  of  panch

witness Prabhakar. Blood stained pant of the accused was also seized

under panchnama (Exh. 27), in his presence.  Third panch witness Vilas

(PW-7) was present when arrest of the accused was effected, vide Exhibit

30 and also when clothes of the deceased were seized under Exhibit 29.

4. The trial Court, as noted above, discarded the defence of mental

illness  as  raised  by  the  accused  and  found  him  guilty.  The  accused

reiterated its stand of general exception under Section 84 of the IPC

before the High Court. It was submitted that at the time of occurrence

by reason of unsoundness of mind the appellant was incapable to knowing

the nature of the act and was, therefore, entitled to protection under

Section 84 IPC. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea

and dismissed the appeal.   

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the nature of the

acts clearly shows that the appellant was of unsoundness mind and did

not know the consequence of the act and, therefore, ought to have been

given protection under Section 84 IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported

the judgment of the High Court.   

4

7. 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 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

legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. The burden of proof rests

on an accused to prove his insanity, which arises by virtue of Section

105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (in short the ‘Evidence Act’) and

is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused

committed the act with which he is charged. The burden on the accused is

no higher than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil

proceeding. (See  Dahyabhai v.  State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563). In

dealing with cases involving a defence of insanity, distinction must be

made between cases, in which insanity is more or less proved and the

question is only as to the degree of irresponsibility, and cases, in

which insanity is sought to be proved in respect of a person, who for

all intents and purposes, appears sane. In all cases, where previous

insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations have to be borne

in mind. Mayne summarises them as follows:

“Whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act;  whether  it  was  done  in  a  manner  which  showed  a desire  to  concealment  ;  whether  after  the  crime,  the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detections whether, after his arrest, he offered false  excuses  and  made  false  statements.  All  facts  of this  sort  are  material  as  bearing  on  the  test,  which Bramwall, submitted to a jury in such a case : ‘Would the prisoner  have  committed  the  act  if  there  had  been  a policeman  at  his elbow ?  It is to  be remembered that

5

these tests are good for cases in which previous insanity is more or less established. These tests are not always reliable where there is, what Mayne calls, “inferential insanity”.

8. Under Section 84 IPC, 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. The

accused  is  protected  not  only  when,  on  account  of  insanity,  he  was

incapable of knowing the nature of the act, 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 also if he knew that what he

was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was

wrong. 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 and if this

is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and

the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however,

has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the

accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or

immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and

other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural

consequences of his act. Similarly, every person is also presumed to

know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts.

9.  There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos

mentis (not of sound mind), i.e., (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos 6

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., p.105; 1 Hala’s Pleas of the Grown

34). A person made non compos mentis by illness is excused in criminal

cases from such acts as are-committed while under the influence of his

disorder, (See 1 Hale 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; Hale PC 31).

Madness  is  permanent.  Lunacy  and  madness  are  spoken  of  as  acquired

insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity.

10.  Section 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; but in the case of insane

persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will

(furios is nulla voluntas est).

11.   The section itself provides that the 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 not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then

this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding

whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the

7

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. It is

only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties

of  the  mind  that  can  form  a  ground  of:  exemption  from  criminal

responsibility. Stephen in ‘History of the Criminal Law of England, Vo.

II, page 166 has observed that if a person cuts off the head of a

sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it

when he woke up, would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the

act would be incapable of knowing the physical effects of his act. The

law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act

and presumes that where a man’s mind or his faculties of ratiocination

are sufficiently dim 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 This Court in  Sherall Walli Mohammed  v.  State of Maharashtra:

(1972 Cr.LJ 1523 (SC)), held that the mere fact that no motive has been

proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he

made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would not

indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea

for  the  offence.  Mere  abnormality  of  mind  or  partial  delusion,

irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no

protection under Section 84 as the law contained in that section is

still  squarely  based on the  outdated Naughton rules  of 19th Century

England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the same as that

laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by

the House of Lords, in  M Naughton’s case (1843) 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847.

8

Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, may be

relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of

the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the

precise state of the offender’s mind at the time of the commission of

the  offence,  but  some  indication  thereof  is  often  furnished  by  the

conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the

commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not

merely  a  cessation  of  the  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 the expression does not necessarily

mean complete or prefect restoration of the mental faculties to their

original  condition.  So,  if  there  is  such  a  restoration,  the  person

concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to

make it a legal act ; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of

the disorder is not sufficient.

12. 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.

13. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as follows:

9

“84. Act  of  a person of  unsound mind –  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.”

14. The evidence of doctors who attended the accused-appellant and the

opinion expressed by them clearly goes to show that the appellant’s plea

relating to unsoundness of mind have no substance.  Dr. Satish (PW.9)

was present when the appellant was admitted to the Civil Hospital on

18.7.2000 at about 11.45 a.m. He has stated as follows:

“I  examined  the  patient,  I  did  not  find  any  obvious psychiatric  illness.   He  was  still  kept  under observation. Subsequently, Dr. Badgujar (PW.10) medically treated patient Sidhapal.”

15. Similarly,  Dr.  Subhash  Badgujar  (PW.10)  who  also  treated  the

appellant form 18.7.2002 i.e. the date of admission till 25.7.2002 the

date of discharge has stated as follows:

“The  said  patient  Sidhpal  Yadav  was  not  mentally  ill person from 18.7.2002 to 25.7.2002.”  

16. According to PW.10 when he examined the appellant on 18.7.2002 in

the evening he was calm and quiet.  He was neither angry nor was he

shouting.  This according to the doctor indicated that the appellant was

normal.  In the medical records it has been clearly stated that he was

not cooperative and it was difficult to establish any rapport with him.

17. Accordingly, the trial Court and the High Court have rightly held

that Section 84 IPC has no application to the facts of the present case.

18. The appeal is sans merit and is dismissed.   

10

………………………………………………………J. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………………………………J. (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi: October 13, 2008

11