Whether the court dealing with a person of unsound mind U/S 84 of IPC can adopt an accused-friendly approach provided under Chapter 25 of CRPC?

CHAPTER XXV OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

15. Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.'), though procedural in nature, also becomes substantive when it deals with an Accused person of unsound mind. A well-laid procedure is contemplated Under Sections 328 to 339 of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is not even a need for an application Under Section 329 of Code of Criminal Procedure in finding out as to whether an Accused would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the Court. Under Section 330, the Court can even go to the extent of discharging such a person if his inability to stand trial continues with a rigid chance of improvement. As per Section 334 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the Court shall include a specific finding that the act was committed due to unsoundness of mind, though it was actually done. The reason is simple as there cannot be an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind unless the act is actually done.

16. The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability. The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice.

17. Having noted the scope and ambit of Chapter XXV of Code of Criminal Procedure, including the provisions incorporated by way of amendments in the year 2009, one has to take into account the fact that the Court has a larger role to play while considering the case Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. If a friendly approach is required to be followed during the trial, when adequate powers have been conferred upon the Court to even discharge an Accused on the ground of an unsound mind, the same reasoning will have to be applied with much force when it comes to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2010 of 2010

Decided On: 12.01.2023

Prakash Nayi  Vs.  State of Goa

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: M.M. Sundresh, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0269/2023.

Print Page

Madras HC: Precaution to be taken by the magistrate before committal of accused of unsound mind to session court

While so, the police completed the investigation and filed a final

report in P.R.C.No.15 of 2017 against Kaliyappan for the offence under

Section 302 IPC before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.

Surprisingly, the Magistrate commenced the proceedings under Sections 207

and 209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Session, by order

dated 03.03.2008 in P.R.C. No.15 of 2007. Even during the committal

proceedings, the Magistrate did not take any steps to satisfy himself as to

whether Kaliyappan was in a sound state of mind to understand the proceedings.

20. A close reading of Section 328 Cr.P.C. shows that it deals with

(a) persons of unsound mind and (b) persons suffering from mental retardation at the stage of an inquiry. The expression “inquiry” is defined in Section 2(g) to mean every inquiry, other than a trial, under the Code. These may include proceedings relating to remand, bail, taking of cognizance, issuance of process, furnishing of copies, committal proceedings and framing

of charges. In this case, though there were sufficient materials to indicate that Kaliyappan was suffering from mental illness even at the stage of committal, no steps were taken by the committal Court under Section 328 Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.O.P.No.4993 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2485 & 2486 of 2018

Kaliyappan Muniyappan Aanurpatty Vs State 

CORAM:

 Mr. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

PRONOUNCED ON: 04.09.2020

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused should raise plea of insanity or juvenility generally in the trial court

Pleas of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC or mitigating

circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought to be raised during trial

itself. Belated claims not only prevent proper production and appreciation of

evidence, but they also undermine the genuineness of the defence’s case.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1551 of 2010

Mohd. Anwar Vs  The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) 

Surya Kant, J:

Dated: 19.08.2020

Print Page

Whether offence committed due to Premenstrual Stress Syndrome (PMS) qualifies for the defence of insanity?

It is trite that while the burden of proof for the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused is beyond reasonable doubt, the accused has to merely probabilize his defense by preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court in Bhikari v. State of U.P., supra, has held that where plea of insanity is invoked by the accused it is for him to establish that fact. In Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, supra, the Supreme Court held that for the act of a person of unsound mind the crucial point of time for ascertaining existence of circumstances bringing case within purview of Section 84 of the IPC is the time when the offence is committed. The Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, supra, interpreting Section 105 Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 held that nature of burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no higher than that which rests upon a party in civil proceedings. Similarly in Elavarasan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, supra, the Supreme Court held that burden of bringing his/her case under Section 84 of the IPC lies upon person claiming benefit thereof. However, standard of proof which accused has to satisfy for discharge of burden under Section 105 is not same as is expected of prosecution. It is enough for accused to establish his defence on preponderance of probabilities, as in a civil case. 

30. Law is thus well settled that the burden which lays on the accused-appellant was not higher than that which rests upon a party in a civil suit. According to the position emerging from the evidence in the light of such settled law, the appellant has been able to probabilize her defence that at the time of incident she was suffering from unsoundness of mind and was labouring under a defect of reason triggered by premenstrual stress syndrome. Even if the material placed before the court is held to be not sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, it still raises a reasonable doubt as to the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant, thus making out a case for extending benefit of doubt to her.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1987

Decided On: 01.08.2018

 Kumari Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mohammad Rafiq and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.

Print Page

Notes on provisions regarding accused person of unsound mind

S 328 of CRPC(amended by amendment Act 2008 with effect from 31-12-2009)

Procedure in case of  accused being lunatic:-

1) When a Magistrate holding an inquiry has reason to believe that the person against whom the inquiry is being held is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence , the Magistrate shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness of mind and shall cause such person to be examined by Civil Surgeon or other medical officer of district and thereupon shall examine such surgeon or other officer as a witness and shall reduce the examination to writing.

(1-A) If civil surgeon finds accused to be of unsound mind,he shall refer such person to a psychiatrist for care and treatment and psychiatrist shall inform Magistrate whether accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental retardation:

Print Page

Whether court can acquit accused even if he has failed to prove that he was insane at the time of incident?

The   law   undoubtedly   presumes   that   every   person

committing an offence is sane and liable for his acts, though in

specified circumstances it may be rebuttable.  The doctrine of

burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity was

stated as follows in  Dahyabhai  Chhaganbhai  Thakkar   v.

State of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361 :

“(1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused had committed the offence

with   the   requisite   mens   rea,   and   the   burden   of

proving that always rests on the prosecution from the

beginning to the end of the trial. 

(2)   There   is   a   rebuttable   presumption   that   the

accused   was   not   insane,   when   he   committed   the

crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the

Indian   Penal   Code:   the   accused   may   rebut   it   by

placing before the court all the relevant evidence oral,

documentary   or  circumstantial,   but   the  burden  of

proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a

party to civil proceedings. 

(3)  Even  if  the  accused  was  not  able  to   establish

conclusively   that   he   was   insane   at   the   time   he

committed the offence, the evidence placed before the

court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise

a   reasonable   doubt   in   the   mind   of   the   court   as

regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence,

including mens rea of the accused and in that case

the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on

the ground that the general burden of proof resting

on the prosecution was not discharged.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.814 OF 2017

DEVIDAS LOKA RATHOD . V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Dated:JULY 02, 2018.
Citation: (2018) 7 SCC 718

Print Page

When defence of unsoundness of mind of accused is not tenable?

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State of Maharashtra sought to justify the correctness of the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court and submits that the first appellate court in its domain has exercised its appellate power and re-appreciated the evidence and eventually arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the material evidence placed on record, including the defence witness, as also taking into consideration the subsequent conduct of the accused at the time of producing him, after the arrest, before the learned Magistrate, which was the first opportunity for him to state that he has been suffering from schizophrenia, and at the time of hearing of the appeal, he has been sent to the Civil Surgeon. After considering the opinion of the Civil Surgeon and the evidence placed on record, the appellate court has recorded a finding that it is evident, that it was realised on 20.08.2004 that the accused/Appellant herein was talking irrelevantly that was followed by an order of reference of the Appellant to the Civil Surgeon. Whereafter, the accused was certified to be fit to face the trial in March, 2005. Thus, relapse to schizophrenic attack was in August, 2004, which is one year after the incident on 30.07.2003 and, thereafter, at the time of arrest, he has not complained before the learned Magistrate, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court presumed that there were no signs of unsoundness of mind of the accused/Appellant, otherwise there could have been a reference of the accused/Appellant by the learned Magistrate to the Competent Medical expert Doctor at the relevant time. Further, adverting to the relevant fact, namely, on 31.07.2003 at 3.00 p.m., when he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srirampur, the learned Magistrate recorded that the accused/Appellant has no complaint of ill-treatment at the hands of Police. On the day next, after the incident, there were no signs of unsoundness of mind and with reference to the remand report, because it is not exhibited document, presumption, as to the action as recorded in the remand report referred to by the learned Magistrate, will have to be drawn because the learned Magistrate being an official, he has been presumed to have done official act properly while remanding to the judicial custody at the time when the Appellant was produced before him. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has arrived at the right conclusion that there is no evidence adduced by the accused/Appellant on record to show that he was suffering from mental illness on the date of the occurrence to extend the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court with reference to the conduct of the accused seen before the incident, has arrived at the conclusion that he was working to a plan on the day he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 31.07.2003, there were no signs of unsoundness of mind. The defence has not been successful in proving that "at the crucial point of time" or "at the time of doing the act" by unsoundness of mind, the accused/Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. Regarding evidence of unsoundness of mind brought on record is not regarding unsoundness of mind soon before or after the incident. On the contrary, soon before the incident, the accused/Appellant appears to have conscientiously acted upon the plan and, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was rightly not agreed with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the charge holding him not guilty. It has rightly set aside the finding of the trial court holding that the case of the accused does not fall within the purview of general exceptions available Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, we have carefully examined the reasons recorded by the trial court Judge that immediately after the incident the Appellant has performed Pooja and also prepared tea that would factor in to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record. More so, in absence of defence for unsoundness of mind the accused/Appellant on the date of the incident, in our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court did not err in setting aside the acquittal judgment passed by the trial court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl. A. No. 2143 of 2009

Decided On: 13.01.2016

 Uttam Nandram Somwanshi

Vs.

 State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Gopala Gowda and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC205

Print Page

Whether accused can take defence of legal insanity when final report is filed by police?

 The ingredients of Section 84 of the Indian

Penal Code can only be taken as a defence during

trial. It is not possible to throw out the Final Report in

a case on the ground that the concerned accused was

suffering from legal insanity. The legal insanity has to

be proved by the concerned accused, who is harping

upon such a defence. The standard of proof required

is only by proof through preponderance of probabilities

and not proof beyond doubt. Matters being so, the

present stage is too premature to consider those

aspects.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT:

           MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

    28TH DAY OF JULY 2016
                 Crl.MC.No. 4789 of 2016 ()
             

           R. ASHOK KUMAR, 
V

          STATE OF KERALA,
          
      Citation:2016 CRLJ4765

Print Page

Whether mere prior incidence of psychiatric treatment is enough to prove legal insanity?

State of Maharashtra vs. Santosh Maruti Mane, Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2013, decided on September 9, 2014

Read full judgment here;click here
Rejecting the plea of insanity, a division bench comprising of VM Kanade and PD Kode,  JJ confirmed death penalty to a former State Transport bus driver who had killed 9 persons and injured another 36 in a “road rage” incident in Pune in 2012. Defending the accused, advocate  Jaideep Mane relied on the defence of insanity under Section 84, IPC contending that the accused had been undergoing psychiatric treatment prior to this incident. The Court, however rejected the argument observing there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that the accused was suffering from a serious mental disorder when he committed the act and that the evidence produced by the psychiatrist was “not reliable.” The  Bench also observed that mere prior incidence of treatment was not sufficient and it has to be established that at the time of

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