Whether police can file final report saying that no offence is made out against accused considering his right of private defence?

From this provision, it is crystal clear that the an offence either culpable homicide or murder as defined under Sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. are also subject to the exceptions contained in Chapter IV titled "General Exceptions". Section 96 of I.P.C. declares that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Section 100 states as to when the right of private defence of body extends to causing of death. Thus, during the course of investigation, if the police officer finds that the act of the accused falls squarely within the ambit of Section 100 of I.P.C. then, he cannot file a positive final report to the effect that an offence either under Sections 302 or 304 I.P.C. has been committed. For arriving at such a conclusion that the act of the assailants falls squarely within the ambit of Section 100 of the Code, during the course of investigation, the police officer is not concerned with Section 105 of the Evidence Act. Section 105 of the Evidence Act deals with proof of exception during trial. It states that it is for the accused to prove that his act would fall under any one of the general exceptions or special exceptions. Since, during investigation, the accused is not called upon to prove any disputed fact, the question of applying Section 105 of the Evidence Act does not arise at all. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard therefore deserves only to be rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

W.P. No. 25743 of 2010

Decided On: 09.02.2016

 P. Pugalenthi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Coram:

M. Jaichandren and S. Nagamuthu, JJ.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)82 Madras

Print Page

Whether person suffering from mental disease is exempted from criminal liability?

 Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence with reference to his medical 

condition by production of medical evidence and other relevant factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime. Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219, in which it has been held as follows:

9. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadull,AIR 1961 SC 998, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV.

11. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, 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 is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought.

Accused seeking exoneration from criminal liability on the ground of of unsoundness of mind should prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Even if accused establishes unsoundness of mind IPC will not come to his rescue if it is found that he was knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.

Supreme Court of India

Surendra Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2011

Author: C K Prasad

Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, P. Sathasivam, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Print Page