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

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

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

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

How to appreciate evidence when plea of insanity is taken by accused?

 The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the
plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions:(1)
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant 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 under
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused may rebut this
presumption by placing before the court all the relevant
evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of
proof upon the accused is no higher than that which rests upon
a party to civil proceedings. 3) Even if the accused is not able to
establish conclusively that he was not of sound mind 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. Similar

view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Shrikant
Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002
Cri. L.J. 4536.
19 The circumstances that stand proved in this case in
relation to the defence of the appellant of lunacy are as under:
(I) since at least 4 months prior to the incident the
appellant had a history of psychiatric illness;
(ii) soon after the incident the appellant was admitted
in the Government mental hospital for his mental
illness;
(iii) his mental illness was to such an extent that he
was given electric shocks in addition to other
treatment.
20 In the present case, however, the above mentioned
factors are not the only factors but it is totality of the
circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record which
proves that the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of
mind. The appellant used to speak irrelevant things. He also
had fear in his mind and idea that he was being persecuted. His
memory and intelligence was impaired. He was also suffering
from depression and excessive worry about the future. The

evidence of DW-1 shows that prior to the incident the appellant
had been given medicines for one month in relation to his
unsoundness of mind. The unsoundness of mind before and
after the incident is a relevant fact. From the circumstances of
this case an inference can certainly be drawn that the appellant
was under a delusion at the relevant time and thus at the time
of the incident he was under an attack of mental illness.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.113 OF 2007
SHRI DEEPAK BAPURAO YEDAGE

Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

 CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
 A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
 Date: 7th September 2015.
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri)4453

Print Page

What are exceptions to normal rule that the burden of proof is upon prosecution?

There are some exceptions to the normal rule that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The main exceptions are as follows. (1) When the defendant admits the elements of the crime (the actus reus and mens rea) but pleads a special defence, the evidential burden is upon him to prove his defence. This may occur, the example, in a prosecution for murder in which the defendant raises a defence of self-defence. (2) When the defendant pleads automatism, the evidential burden is upon him. (3) When the defendant pleads insanity, both the evidential and persuasive burden rest upon him. In this case, however, it is sufficient if he proves his case on a balance of probabilities (i.e. he must persuade the jury that it is more likely that he is telling the truth than not). (4) In some cases statute expressly places a persuasive burden on the defendant; for example, a person who carries an offensive weapon in public is guilty of an offence unless he proves that he had lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for carrying it".

Supreme Court of India

Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State Of Haryana on 9 January, 2015

Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Kurian Joseph

Citation;(2015) 3 SCC 724

Print Page