A SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE

v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

B

[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84:

C Insanity-Benefit of-Entitlement to-Held, state of mind of the accused

at the time

of commission of offence to be inferred from the circumstances to

prove insanity to claim benefit of the exception-Accused suffering from

Psychiatric illness indulged

in quarrel with his wife and hit her on her head

resulting

in her death-Under the circumstances, reasonable inference could

be drawn that accused

was under a delusion at the time of commission of

D crime-Thus, he is entitled to the benefit of general exceptions under Section

84-Evidence

Act, 1872; Section

I 05.

Accused-appellant indulged in a quarrel with his wife, and hit her

with a grinding stone, on her head. Consequently she died. Trial Court

E found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced

him to life

imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction and

sentence. Hence this appeal.

It was contended for the appellant

that accused was suffering from

insanity

at the time of killing his wife and thus entitled to benefit of general

F exceptions under Section 84

IPC. On behalf of the State, it was contended

that accused killed his wife during fit of extreme anger.

Allowing the appeal, the

Court

HELD: 1.

The· burden of proving the existence of circumstances

G bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused

under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act; the Court shall presume

the absence

of such circumstances.

Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the

accused

at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception. The unsoundness of mind preceding

occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. Regarding the

H

612

-

-

SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ' 6] 3

state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence, A

ordinarily that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances.

Further, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher

than

that which rests upon a

·party to civil proceedings.

1617-A; 618-F, G, H; 619-AJ

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gzljarat, 11964) 7 SCR B

361, relied on.

2. In the instant case, it is the totality of the circumstances seen in

the light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant was suffering

from

paranoid schizophrenia.

It has been proved that there was a family C

history of psychiatric illness. The accused-appellant and his father were

suffering from the ailment. From the circumstances of the case clearly an

inference could reasonably be drawn that the appellant was under a

delusion at the time of commission of offence. He was under an attack of

the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not

ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of D

burden on the appellant, the appellant has proved the existence of

circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get

benefit

of

Section 84 IPC. Thus, the crime was not committed as a result

of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of

commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the E

nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus he is entitled

to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the

appellant cannot be sustained. 1619-E-H; 620-AI

Modi 's Medical Jurisprudence, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.

180 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1998 of the Bombay High

Court in Crl. A. No. 189/95.

Dr. Shyamla Pappu, (AC), Shakeel Ahmed (AC) and R. Krishnamoorthi,

for the Appellant.

Arun, Naresh Kumar and V.N. Raghupathy, for the Respondent.

The Judgment

of the

Court was delivered by

F

G

H

614

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Insanity of the appellant, at the time of

commission of the offence, is the main plea that has been urged before us for

reversing the conviction and sentence in question.

The appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of the offence

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (!PC) and sentenced to undergo

B rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against conviction and sentence

having

been dismissed by the High

Court, this appeal has been filed on grant

of leave.

Shortly put, the prosecution case is that the appellant was a Police

Constable. He and Surekha were married in the year 1987. On the date of the

C incident, they were living in police quarters along with their daughter. On the

morning

of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrel between husband and wife.

While Surekha

was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her

with grinding stone on her head. The appellant was immediately taken by the

police

to the quarter guard.

Surekha was taken to the Hospital. She was found

D dead. After usual investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of

murder of his wife.

On appreciation of evidence, the appellant was found guilty by the

Sessions Court. The evidence was again appreciated by the High Court. The

judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed. We have heard learned counsel

E and have perused the record. In our opinion also, there is enough cogent

evidence

to prove that the appellant

killed his wife.

Now, the only aspect to be considered is the defence of insanity of the

appellant. That defence

has not found favour with the

Sessions Court and the

High Court. Dr. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus

F curie has vehemently and ably argued that the appellant was suffering from

insanity at the time of alleged killing of his wife and was, thus, entitled to

benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 !PC. With equal

vehemence

and ability, Mr. A run Pednekar argued that the appellant killed

his wife

not because of insanity but

oo account of extreme anger, which is

G different from insanity.

Learned counsel

for the

State, relying upon prosecution witnesses,

contended

that the appellant, earlier than the date of incident, used to quarrel

with his wife; drink excessive liquor and used to get excited and this evidence

proves that

he, by nature, was a man of extreme anger. During fit of extreme

H anger, he killed his wife.

...

.....

-

..

·,

..

SH RI KANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE r STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SABHARWAL, J J6 J 5

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish the A

plea of unsoundness of mind. drew our attention to the depositions of Dr,

Arun (DW2) and Dr. Pramod (DW3). The case history and other proved

medical record shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid

schizophrenia.

He was an indoor patient at a Government hospital from 28th

October, 1993 to 5th November, 1993 for getting treatment for the said B ailment It further stands established that he was suffering from this disease

at least from 20th April, 1992. He was examined by DW3 on 20th April,

1992 having visited the said doctor with his wife. It also stands established

that 25 times he was taken to hospital for treatment of his mental ailment

from 27th June, 1994 to 5th December. 1994. DW2 deposed that the appellant

was examined by him on 27th October, 1993. He suffered from suspicious C

idea persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and excitement and was diagnosed

as paranoid schizophrenia. The appellant was intermittently becoming

apprehensive

and excited. DW3 deposed that on

20th April 1992, he examined

the appellant brought by his wife. There was history of psychiatric illness in

father at the age of 65 years and in 1989 his father ran away from the house. D

People used to take advantage of his mental condition and cheat him. After

marriage

his mental condition worsened.

On examination, he was found

suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The patient had visual hallucination

(seing

images of wife and children). He was brought to hospital 25 times as

above. Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disease. It can recur. When a

person is under

~aranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his activities and E

its consequences.

Was the commission of offence a result of extreme anger or unsoundness

of mind is the question to be decided?

From the aforesaid evidence, it has been proved that there was a family F

history of psychiatric illness. The father of the appellant was suffering from

the ailment at the age of 65 and in 1989 his father ran away from the house.

What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics

and dangers flowing from this ailment. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast G

majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously.

Suspiciousness

is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of

reference occur, which gradually develops into delusions of persecution.

Auditory hallucinations

follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or

noises in the ears, but are afterwards changes into abuses or insults. Delusions

are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead H

616

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some

superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned. some noxious

gases are blown into his room. and people are plotting against him to ruin

him. Disturbances of general sensation gives rise to hallucinations. which are

attributed to the effects of hypnotism. electricity wireless telegraphy or atomic

B agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful

and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are

against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must

be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from

prosecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power

and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing

C manner. The patient usually retains his money and orientation and does not

show signs of insanity, until the conversations is directed to the particular

type of delusion

from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his

behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. [Modi's

Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edn.)]

D

Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known

but hereditary plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting behaviour of patient, he is source of danger to himself

and to others.

E In view of the medical evidence, Mr. Arun Pednekar, learned counsel

appearing

for the State, very rightly submitted that the prosecution cannot

question

that the

appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind prior to

and after the date of the commission of the offence. Even otherwise, it stands '

proved

from the aforesaid evidence of depositions of the Government Doctors

who, it appears, deposed on the basis of the medical record, that the appellant

F was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia long before the commission of

the offence and the ailment continued thereafter as well. What has, however,

been urged by Mr. Pednekar is that the

appellant has failed to prove that he

was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the

offence. The submission is that the fact that the appellant was suffering from

G the ailment before or after the commission of the offence is of no consequence

when the appellant has failed to prove he was suffering from that ailment at

the time when the offence was committed.

The burden to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind and as a

resultthereof

he was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is

H on the defence. Section 84

!PC is one of the provision in Chapter IV !PC

,·

...

..

SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE 1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SABHARWAL, JJ6] 7

which deals with "general exceptions". That section provides that nothing is A

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. The burden of proving

the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section

84 lies upon the accused under Section I 05 of the Indian Evidence Act. B

Under the said section, the Court shall presume the absence of such

circumstances. Illustration

(a) to Section I

05 is as follows :

"(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of

mind, he did not know the nature of the act.

The burden of proof is on A."

The question whether the appellant has proved the existence of

circumstances bringing his case within the purview of Section 84 will have

to be examined from the totality of circumstances. The unsoundness of mind

c

as a result whereof one is incapable of knowing consequences is a state of D

mind of a person which, ordinarily can be inferred from the circumstances.

If, however, an act is committed out of extreme anger and not as a result of

unsoundness of mind, the accused would not be entitled to the benefit of

exception as contained in Section 84 !PC. In fact, that is the contention of the

learned counsel for the State. It was contended that the prosecution evidence

has established that the appellant by nature was an angry person and under E

the fit of extreme anger, he committed the murder of his wife as there was

fight between them that morning and there is nothing to show that at the

relevant time the appellant was under an attack of paranoid schizophrenia.

At this stage, it is necessary to notice the nature of the burden that is

. required to be discharged by the accused to get benefit of Section 84 !PC. In

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, [ 1964] 7 SCR 361 this

Court has held that even ifthe accused was not able to establish conclusively

F

that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed

before the Court 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 G

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. The burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no

higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings which, in other words,

means preponderance of probabilities. This Court held that :

H

618 SUPREME COUkT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A "The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity

may be stated in the following propositions : (I) 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

B presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime,

in the sense laid down by s.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

C 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."

D

In support of the contention that the crucial point of time for ascertaining

the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section

84 IPC is the time when the offence is committed, the learned counsel relied

upon the following passage from the aforenoticed case :

E "When a plea of legal insanity is set up, 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 was doing what was either wrong or contrary to

law.

The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the

F accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the

accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit

of s.84 of the Indian

Penal Code can only be established from the

circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime."

Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission

G of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception.

We have already noticed earlier that unsoundness of mind preceding

occurrence

and following the occurrence stands proved. It has rightly not

been questioned by learned counsel for the

State. Regarding the state of mind

of the accused at the time of commission of offence, in our opinion, ordinarily

H that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances. Further. as

]

SHRIKANT ANANDRAO Bl-IOSALE v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SABHARWAL. J.] 619

earlier noticed, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher A

than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these:

I. The appellant has a family history his father was suffering from

psychiatric illness.

2. Cause of ailment not known -hereditary plays a part.

' Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of \TI ind since 1992-J.

Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

4. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to

5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment

25 times to hospital.

5. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.

6. The weak motive of killing of wife -being that she was opposing

the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.

7. Killing in day light - no attempt to hide or run away.

Mr. Arun Pednekar relies upon Shera/Ii Wali Mohammed v. The State

of Maharashtra, (1973] 4 SCC 79 to contend that mere fact that the appellant

B

c

D

did not make any attempt to run away or that he committed the crime in day E

light and did not try to hide it or that motive to kill his wife was very weak,

would not indicate that at the time of commission of the act the appellant was

suffering from unsoundness of mind or he did not have requisite mens rea for

the commission of the offence. It is correct that these facts itself would not

indicate insanity. In the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid

facts but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence F

on record to prove that the appellant was suffering from paranoid

schizophrenia.

The unsoundness of mind before and after incident is a relevant

fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be

reasonably

drawn that the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. He was

under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been G

placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia a:tack. Having regard to the

nature

of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the

appellant has

proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section I 05 of the

Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 !PC. We are unable to hold

that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a

reasonable

doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the

appellant H

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of

mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 !PC. Hence, the

conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.

Before parting, we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for

the able assistance rendered by Dr. Shyamla Pappu appearing as amicus curie

B for the appellant.

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the

High Court and ~llow the appeal. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith,

if not required in any other case.

C S.K.S. Appeal allowed.