Summary
In 2004 the appellant, without motive or provocation, killed his relative at a store in Goa where he worked, using an iron plate. Afterwards he sat at a bus stand and made no attempt to flee. He had earlier been treated as an in-patient with medication used for schizophrenia, and a Government doctor later found him to have chronic schizophrenia, at first unfit to stand trial. The courts below rejected his plea of insanity. The Supreme Court acquitted him under Section 84 IPC. Legal insanity, not medical insanity, is the test, and the accused need prove it only on a preponderance of probabilities, judged from his conduct before, during and after the act. The courts below were swayed by the nature of the act and wrongly brushed aside the medical evidence.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, convicted of murder, was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC on the evidence of his schizophrenia, prior treatment and conduct, and what standard of proof applies to the plea of insanity.
Provisions considered
- Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860An act is no offence if, owing to unsoundness of mind, the doer was incapable of knowing its nature or that it was wrong or contrary to law; legal, not medical, insanity at the time of the act is required (Surendra Mishra, Hari Singh Gond, Bapu). (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 28)
- Sections 8 and 105, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The accused's burden is discharged on a preponderance of probabilities, assessed from conduct before, during and after the act; a reasonable doubt on mental condition entitles him to acquittal (Dahyabhai Thakkar, Devidas Loka Rathod). (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13, 14)
- Chapter XXV (Sections 328 to 339), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The procedure for accused of unsound mind reflects a non-adversarial approach that the court must carry into the assessment under Section 84. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Held
- Proof of insanity is a collective, non-adversarial responsibility of the accused, the prosecution and the court; the investigating agency must examine materials suggesting unsoundness, and the burden on the accused is only of preponderance of probability. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
- The motiveless attack, the appellant's conduct of returning the weapon and sitting at the bus stand without fleeing, his earlier in-patient treatment with anti-psychotic medication, and the Government doctor's unshaken evidence of chronic schizophrenia since adolescence established unsoundness of mind; his later becoming fit to stand trial itself indicated prior insanity. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 25, 27)
- The trial court and High Court were influenced by the nature of the act, ignored the defence medical evidence and the prior treatment, and wrongly applied the burden, so the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 84. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 2010 of 2010 allowed; the trial court's conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC dated 25.07.2006 and the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) judgment dated 02.06.2008 in Crl. A. No. 63 of 2006 set aside, and the appellant acquitted with bail bonds discharged.