Section 84 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

84. Act of a person of unsound mind.—

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.

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 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 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 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."

Mens Rea: The Guilty Mind

Mens Rea, often referred to as the “guilty mind,” is about the mental side of being
responsible for a crime. It means having the intention or knowing that you’re doing
something wrong that could lead to bad consequences.

When it comes to Mens Rea, the person being accused must have purposely
intended to hurt someone or do something against the law. This way of thinking
marks the difference between someone who meant to do something bad and
someone who didn’t mean to but still caused harm. It’s like the foundation for
saying someone is criminally responsible.

Actus Reus: The Guilty Act

 On the other hand, Actus Reus is about the physical part of committing a crime. It
covers the actual actions a person takes or the actions they didn’t take but should
have. These actions can cause harm, injury, or violate someone else’s rights.

Actus Reus looks at the things that are clearly visible, the things that people do,
and it reminds us that a crime is more than just a thought—it’s something that
happens in the real world and upsets the balance of society. Mens Rea and Actus
Reus go hand in hand because you need both a guilty mind and a guilty act to have
a proper crime.

Certain crucial factors must be present in order to establish Mens Rea.

1. Intention or Awareness

The accused’s purpose or knowledge to conduct an unlawful act is a key

component of Mens Rea. This implies that the person must have actively decided
to engage in the conduct, even knowing that it is illegal and might result in
negative consequences.

Example: A person brings a hidden firearm to a public gathering knowing it is

against the law. Later, at the party, the individual threatens someone with the
weapon. In this case, the accused had the intent to possess the firearm and was
aware that it was prohibited, demonstrating Mens Rea.

2. Imprudence

Recklessness is defined as deliberately taking a risk despite knowing that it may

result in harm or criminal repercussions. Mens Rea relies heavily on the accused’s
disregard for possible damage.

For example, suppose a person drives at high speeds through a busy market, fully
aware that doing so may result in accidents and injuries. Despite the obvious
danger, the person continues to drive carelessly, endangering others.

3. Criminal Awareness

Mens Rea can also be proven when the accused is aware of the illegal character of
their activities, even though they did not mean to inflict harm.
 Example: A person sells counterfeit items on the street unwittingly, believing
them to be genuine. However, the individual is aware that selling counterfeit
things is against the law. Even if the individual had no intention of harming
anybody, their knowledge of the crime establishes Mens Rea.

4. Carelessness

Negligence is defined as the failure to exert appropriate care or attention,

which causes unexpected injury. In some situations, especially in offenses
involving carelessness, negligence may be sufficient to establish Mens Rea.

Example: A driver fails to notice a red traffic signal due to distractions and
accidentally hits a pedestrian. Even though the driver didn’t have the intention
to harm anyone, their failure to exercise proper care and attention establishes
Mens Rea in the context of negligence.

5. Motive

While motive is not always a necessary element to establish Mens Rea, it can
help provide insight into the accused’s state of mind and intention behind the
criminal act.

Under s. 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in s.
4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless,
after considering the matters before it, it believes that said circumstances existed or
their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist.
Brief facts, in nutshell, are as follows. The appellant was working as a driver in
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation since 08.08.1999 and, at the relevant
time, he was working with Swargate S.T. Depot, Pune. On 25.01.2012, the appellant had
requested Shashikant Damkale (PW-23), who was Assistant Traffic Controller of
Swargate Depot, to change his duty from night out duty to single day duty. After PW-23
declined his request, he quietly walked out of his office and went to S.T. Bus which was
standing in the Depot, entered it along Reason: with the key which was available with
him, started the said bus and hijacked it. He took two rounds in the Bus Depot during
which he knocked down and crushed to death 2 to 3 people. When he was asked to stop
the bus by the Officers of the S.T. Depot, he took out the S.T. Bus, drove the vehicle on
circuitous route for about 14 to 16 kilometers, killed another six people in the process of
driving the vehicle in the most reckless manner, grievously injured 36 persons, some of
whom are permanently disabled, and damaged the public property by driving his S.T.
Vehicle over rickshaws, scooters, cars electric polls until he was finally stopped and
apprehended by a Police man who entered the S.T. Bus from one of the windows.

It may be mentioned at the outset that insofar as the incident in question is concerned,
there is no dispute about the same and further the prosecution was able to prove this
incident beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and credible evidence. The entire
case set up by the appellant before the courts below as well as in this appeal is that he
was a person of unsound mind and did not know as to what he had done and, therefore,
he should have been given the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). In
support of the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
medical evidence that was produced before the trial court. He has submitted that
immediately after the incident in question, when the appellant was apprehended, he
was produced for medical examination and examined by four Doctors, three of them were
general physicians and one was a psychiatrist. It is submitted that the psychiatrist who
had examined the appellant was not produced as a witness by the prosecution during the
trial. The learned counsel has also referred to the medical examination conducted by one
Dr. S.J. Mahamuni, another psychiatrist in Regional Mental Hospital, Pune, two days
after his arrest, i.e., 27.01.2012. Relying upon the said evidence, it is argued that as per
this Doctor, at the time of his examination, the appellant was having blunt thoughts,
delusion of persecution, delusion of black magic, no guilt/ remorse on the incident and
anditory hallucination (making verbal sounds as if somebody is throwing him on the
ground and beating him). This evidence, according to the learned counsel, would show
that the appellant was not in a normal state of mind when the incident took place.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, no doubt, the burden
was on the appellant to prove his insanity by producing evidence in accordance
with Section 84 of the IPC. However, the learned counsel argues, even when the evidence
has been brought, which throws some doubts that the accused is insane, the ultimate
burden which is always upon the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt
which the prosecution has not discharged in this case. In support of this proposition, he
has referred to the judgment of this Court in Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of
Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361 and, in particular, the following discussion therefrom:

"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 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 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 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."

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the discussion in
the judgment of the High Court and, according to him, the High Court has considered all
the aspects and nuances of the matter and has come to the conclusion that the appellant
could not prove that he was insane and, therefore, was rightly denied the benefit
of Section 84 of the IPC. His further submission is that, in fact, the occurring of the
incident has been proved by sufficient evidence.

After perusing the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court and going through
the records, we are of the opinion that the courts below have rightly rejected the defence
of the appellant predicated on Section 84 of the IPC. Even in the judgment in the case
of Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat (supra) cited by the learned
counsel for the appellant, having regard to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, onus
is upon the defence to produce the evidence to make out the case to get it covered under
the provisions of Section 84 of the IPC. It is worthwhile to mention that even in the
aforesaid case, on merits, the court found absence of sufficient evidence to attract the
provisions of Section 84 of the IPC.

In the instant case, the High Court has discussed the entire evidence on this issue
including the one referred to by the appellant and after analysing the same has held this
aspect against the appellant. It is not necessary to reproduce the evidence discussed by
the High Court in this behalf. Suffice is to mention that, in defence, the appellant had
produced two witnesses, namely, DW-1, Dr. Dilip Shankar Burte and DW-2, Mr.
Shrivanand Gangadhar Shete, Pharmacist. However, testimonies of both of them could
not advance the case. It may also be mentioned that the High Court has specifically dealt
with and analysed the subject matter under the following heads: (i) conduct of the
appellant a day prior to the incident; (ii) conduct of the appellant immediately prior to the
incident; (iii) conduct of the appellant during the incident; (iv) evidence to show that the
appellant was aware of what he was doing during the incident; and (v) defence evidence
of the appellant.

We do not find any error in the approach adopted by the High Court in discussing the
aforesaid aspects. As a result, insofar as the conviction of the appellant is concerned, the
same stands.

With this, we advert to the issue of imposition of death sentence given by the trial court
and affirmed by the High Court. We find that even though the appellant has not been able
to establish the defence of insanity, the appellant was under

mental strain and stress which resulted into the aforesaid reaction on his part. Otherwise,
he is not a person of any criminal antecedents. Nothing is indicated about his propensity
of criminality on his part. We were also informed by the learned counsel for the
respondent that his conduct in Jail has been satisfactory. There is every possibility of his
reform. In fact, he may be a reformed person already as we are informed that the
appellant is regretting his aforesaid action taken in undue palpitation. Therefore, we do
not agree with the High Court that the appellant has become a menace and threat to the
harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society or that it is a rarest of rare case.