The ICFAI University, Dehradun

Summer Internship Program 2020

Student’s Name: Ritesh Mohan Kathuria

Enrolment No: 19FLICDDN01105
Batch Name & Year: BBA.LLB (2019-2024)
Project Title: CASE STUDY – Shrikant Anand Rao
Bhosale V. State Of Maharshtra

Submitted By: Ritesh mohan kathuria

Submitted To: Priya chanana

 CASE DETAILS

PETITIONER: Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/2002

BENCH: Y.K.Sabharwal, H Sema

CITATIONS: 2002 Cr. L.J. 4356 S.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The appellant was a Police Constable. He and Surekha were married in the year 1987.

 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 dead. After usual
investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of murder of his wife.

 The weak motive of killing of wife being that she was opposing the idea of the
appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.

 The appellant has a family history that his father was suffering from psychiatric
illness.

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

 Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed as
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

 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.

 Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.

 In support of his contention he relied on past psychiatric treatment and the testimony
of two medical doctors who prepared his medical record and stated that he suffered
from suspicious ideas, persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and was a paranoid
schizophrenic.

 Insanity of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, is the main plea
that was urged before the court.
Arguments Advanced

1. On Behalf of the Appelant

 The counsel on the behalf of the appellant 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 IPC.

 Also, the learned counsel for the appellant to establish the plea of unsoundness
of mind, drew the attention of the court to the depositions of Dr. Arun and
Dr.Pramod who said that medical history of the appellant was conclusive in
nature to prove him as a person with an unsound mind

2. On behalf of the Respondent

 With equal vehemence and ability, Mr. Arun Pednekar argued that the appellant killed
his wife not because of insanity but on account of extreme anger, which is different
from insanity.

 The 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 anger, he killed his wife.
ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Unsoundness of mind
Section 84 of Indian Penal Code states that unsoundness of mind is a defence to a
criminal liability. It has been accepted as a defence to a criminal charge on the theory
that ‘one who is insane has no mind and hence cannot have the necessary mens rea to
commit a crime’.

Unsoundness of mind is commonly termed insanity and according to medical science,

is a disorder of the mind which impairs the mental faculties of a man. In other words,
insanity is another name for mental abnormality due to various factors and exists in
various degrees.

To invoke the benefit of section 84, it must be proved that at the time of commission
of the offence, the accused was non compos mentis and that unsoundness of mind was
of such a degree and nature as to fulfill one of the tests laid down in the section. These
are:-

 Firstly, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and,

 Secondly, that the accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from
understanding that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

2. Burden Of Proof

When a plea of insanity is set up by the accused, the burden of proof is on him to
prove it. But a man, who is insane will not be able to defend himself properly and
effectively. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to look after the defence of the
accused in the light of the evidence on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated the legal position regarding the burden of
proof in the context of the plea of insanity 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 upon the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial;
ii. There is a rebuttal presumption that the accused was not insane, when he
committed the crime, in the sense laid down in Section 84; 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 which rests
upon a party in civil proceedings, that is, to prove his defence by a preponderance of
probability;

iii. 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 resting on the prosecution has not been discharged.

The plea of insanity holds water due to the fact that the previous insanity of the
accused has been ratified by expert opinion, admissible under sec 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

JUDGEMENT / DECISION OF THE COURT

Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, the view of judges was that
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. They were unable to hold that
the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There was a reasonable
doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of
knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he was
entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the
appellant could not be sustained.
Hence, the appeal was allowed in this case, and the plea for defence under Section
84 was granted to the appellant.

REASON:
The defence of insanity is recognized in India by virtue of Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code which reads as under:-
“Sec.84: Nothing is 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.”

Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act an opinion of an expert on a matter of science,

technical or special knowledge is admissible evidence to guide the tier of the fact to
understand the scientifically recognized principles with reference whereto a question
of fact has to be determined. Thus, where a plea of insanity has been set up as a
defence, the tier of the facts may seek the assistance of an expert but the decision
cannot be delegated to the expert and has to be decided by the tier of the facts i.e. the
Court.

“Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness
of mind. There is no definition of ‘unsoundness of mind’ in IPC. The courts have,
however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term
‘insanity’ itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees
of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto
exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal
insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with
medical insanity.”

An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the
Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression
“unsoundness of mind” has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has
mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity carries different
meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every
person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not
quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had
rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual
acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and
there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer are not sufficient to attract the
application of Section 84of the Indian Penal Code.

Next question which needed consideration was as to on whom the onus lied 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 was imperative to
take into consideration the circumstances and the behavior 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.

It was necessary to notice the nature of the burden that was required to be discharged
by the accused to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker
v. State of Gujarat the Court had held that 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 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.

In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed,
the court had 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 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 session’s proceedings commenced, was relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as
to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought.
Hence all the facts and circumstances were required to be taken into account while
deciding upon the defence of insanity under section 84 of the code.

ANALYSIS

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. The issue of medico-
legal insanity which is often introduced in courts and creates a lot of doubt regarding
the condition of the insane and his mind-set during the commission of crime has to be
discussed in each and every case. There are three compartments of the mind -
controlling cognition, emotion and will. IPC Sec. 84 only exempts one whose
cognitive faculties are affected. The provision is regarded as too narrow, and makes
no provision for a case where one’s emotion and the will are so affected as to render
the control of the cognitive faculties ineffectual. The Courts must also adopt a broader
view of the Insanity and introduce the concept of diminished responsibility.
The present law on insanity does not make room for sudden provocations or disturbed
mental states and other such conditions.
For instance:
 For a person in Depressive state, suicidal thoughts are common occurrences. If such a
person attempts to commit suicide and seeks protection under the Section 84 of the
IPC, as depression is still seen an emotional state/he won't be pardoned under the
current law.
 The same rationale of our law goes and will find a new mother, who's going through
rapid hormonal changes and emotional disturbance, guilty after she commits
infanticide. The punishment in this case is double, the mother has to go through the
loss of her child which she couldn’t have prevented owing to her extreme emotional
state and the punishment that law inflicts on her.
Also the burden of proof in each case has to be decided by the court in the light of
provisions of law. According to my view, Section 105 of the Evidence Act, has
justified the plea for defence of insanity. The burden of proof must lie on the accused
who is demanding the relief under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. This not only
helps in speedy recovery of the facts but also speeds up the decision making process
of the courts. This burden on the accused ceases when he/she proves the insanity
beyond reasonable doubt. Now the burden of proof shifts on the prosecution to prove
that whether or not the accused is insane, he was aware of all the consequences of his
act at the time of commission of the offence.
Thus in my opinion, the difference between Medical and Legal insanity should subsist
but the horizons and the reach of the latter should be stretched to cover all Human
Possibilities and Justifications of human behaviour.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEB:
 www.westlaw.com
 www.legalperspectives.in
 www.indialawjournal.com
 http://crimes.indlaw.com/search/articles/?fffde2f4-ea4e-42ef-b94b-bdd9b94092d4
 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1923024/
 http://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%2084%20of%20ipc
%20%20%20%20doctypes%3A%20judgments&pagenum=3