251

A RATANLAL
v.
STATE OF-MADHYA PRADESH
December 17, 1970
B [S. M. S!KRI, V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
In<fian Penal Code, s. 84-General exceptions-Plea of IMll!lty-
Insanity must be proved to have existed at time of commission of o6ettee-
Burden of proof is on accused-Burden ls not higher than that 011 fHU'lies
te civil proceedings-Relatives of accused as defence witnesses-Ned nor
be drsbelieved on that ground-They have opportunity 10 know accuset!
c Intimately-Failure of accused to produce expert evidence in c/efence-
Adverse inference need not be drawn.
The appellant set fire to grass lying Rear a khalyan. He was arrested
next day. From February 23, 1965 when be was arrested to February
2, 1965, he was in police custody and thereafter sent to jail. The Assis-
tant Surgeon, the Civil Surgeon, and the Psychiatrist of the mental hospital
to which he was referred reported that he was depressed and silent.
0 According to the Psychiatrist he was a lunatic in terms of the Indian
Lunacy Act, 1912. At his trial under s. 435 of the Indian Penal Code
two of bis relatives appeared as defence witnesses and testified that be
was mentally unsound. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused o~ the
finding that the appellant fell within the general exception in s. 84 of the
Indian Penal Code. The High Court, in appeal filed by the State, re'
versed the judgment. In appeal by special leave,
E HELD : It is now well-settled that the crucial point of time at which
unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime
was committed. The burden of proving this lies on the accused thou&h
the burden is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civD pre-
ceedings. [252 El
State of Madya Pradesll v. Ahnradulla, [1961] 3 S.C.R. ~83 and D. C.
Tllakker v. State of Guiarat, [1964) 7 S.C.R. 361, referred to.
F. In the present case the appellant bad discharged the burden. There
was no reason why the defence witnesses should not be believed. They
were no doubt relations of the appellant but it is the relations who are
likoly to remain in intimate contact. The behaviour of the appellant
on the day of occurrence, failure of the police to lead evidence as to hi•
condition when the aP.P"\lant was in custody, and the medical evidence
indicated that the appellant was insane within the meaning of s. 114 l.P.C ..
[256 DJ
G
The High Court was wrong in drawing an adverse inference apinst
the accused on the ground that he hact not produced any expert medical
evidence in defence. This could not be expected from a poor villager
specially in view of the certificates issued by the medical authoritiea after
he was arrested. [255 CJ
The High Court's observation that the appellant appeared to be ol
H normal understanding and the fact that he had given intelligcnt IUIS'Mn·
to questions under s. 342 Cr.P.C., were irrelevant eonsideration5' in view
· of the time that had elap8"d since the alleged commission of the offence ..
~256 B-CJ
 .252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R.

CRIMINAL APJELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. A

135 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 1, 1968 of the Madhya Praesh High·Court, Gwalior Bench
·in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1966.
R. L. Kohli and/. C. Ta/war, for the appellant. B
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
'The Jud~ent of ithe (;oun was .delivered by
. Sikri, J. This .appeal by special leave is directed against the
.iudgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench,
allowing· the appeal of the State and convicting the appellant for
having committed an offence punishable under s. 435, Indian C
Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one
year. .The only point involved in the present appeal is whether
the appellant was a person of unsound mind within s. 84 of the
Indian Penal Code at the time of the incident. The Magistrate
:held that he was not liable to punishment as he was insane at
that time and did not know that he was doing anything wrong or D
anything contrary to law. The High Court, on the other hand,
came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant did not
fall within the exception created by s. 84, l.P .C.
It is now well-settled ti1at the crucial point of time at which
unsoundr.~ss of mind should be established is the time when the
crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this lies E
on the accused. (See State of MadhY/fl Pradesh v. Ahmad-
.ullah)(1 ). In D. C. Thakker v. State of Gujarat(') it was !aid
.down that "there is a reliuttable 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 befo~e the court all the relevant evidence-oral,
F
documentary or. circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon
him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civi! pro· •
·ceedings." It was further· observed :
"The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state
of mind oi. the accused is the time when the offence was
cumstances which preceded, attended and followed the
mind as to be entitled to the benefit of s. 84 of the
Indian Penal Code can only be established from the cir-
cumstqnces which preceded, attended and followed 1he
•
crime."
The learned counsel contends that if regard is had to the cir-
·CUilllltances which preceded, attended ~nd followed the crime it
H
·would be clear that the accused is entitled to the benefit oi' s. 84
of the Indian Penal Code.
(I) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 583. (2) [1964] 7 S.C.R. 361.
 RATANLAL v. M. P. ,STATE (Sikri, J.) 253

A The prosecution case is that on January 22, 1965, the appel-

taat set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of Nemichand at the
time of the setting of the sun. He was caught at the spot while
setting fjre. On being asked why he did it the accused said; "I
burnt it and do whatever you want." The accused was arrested
on January 23, 1965, and he remained in police custody till
B February 2, 1965, when it was found that the accused needed
medical examil}ation, and accordingly the District M~gistrate
ordered that he be medically examined. No explanation has been
given why he was kept in police custody all tliat time. There
is no evidence either to indicate as to his condition from the time
of his arrest to the time when his case was referred for medical
c examination. These facts were within the knowledge of the police
and we should have expected that the prosecution would lead
evidence regarding his condition during this time. Further, the
police made it impossible for the appellant to prove his mental
condition at the time of the incident by keeping him in 'their
custody from January 23 to February 2, 1965, not,having him-
examined and not sending him to judicial custody earlier where
D he would have been examined by the jail doctor.
On February 20. 1965, V. S. Vaidya, Assistant Surgeoa,
Civil Hospital, Vidisha, reported to the Jailor, Sub Jail, Vidisha,
as follows :
"Subject, In .Ref. to your letter No. 295 dated 8-2-1965.
E
Sir,
Ratanlal Prisoner was kept under observation as iii·
door patient during this time. He was keeping silent, b6
never used to reply any question so in my opinion he.
should be refd. to some specialist for further investigation
and needful."
On February 22, 1965, Y. D. Kamran, Civil Surgeon, VUlisha,
reported as follows :

"Shri Ratanlal, undertrial. was examined by me.

He does not appear to be deaf or dumb, but is mentally
G
retarded. He should be referred to Superintendent,
Mental Hospital, Gwalior, for expert opinion."
On March 29, 1965, Dr. B. Shah. Psychiatrist and Superin-
tendent. Mental Hospital. Gwalior, reported as follows. :

H "This is to certify that Shri Ratanlal s/o Kishanlal

who has been kept under observation in this hospital from
18-3-1965 to 29-3-1965 is.a person of unsound mind, in
terms oflndian Lunancy Act; 1912. He is not dangerous
 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 3 S.C.R.

and/ or violent by reason of Lunancy and thus unfit to A

be at large. The report is based on the following facts
observed here : -
(
( l ) Remains depressed.
( 2) Does not talk.
( 3) He is a case of Maniac depressive. B
( 4) · Psychosis and needs treatment."
On April 28, 1965, another report was given that he was still
a person of unsound mind in terms of Indian Lunancy Act, 1912,
but was better though still confused, and further that treatment
was being continued and it may take 4 to 6 weeks more for re- c
covery.
The defence also led evidence as to his condition before the
incident in question. Shyamlal, D. W. 1, son-in-law Of the appel-
lant stated that "the accused was not feeling well for 2-3 years.
· He was in such a condition that if he is -sitting will remain sitting.
If he is to go then he will go and if he wishes to fall in the river D
then he will fall. Such was the conditions of his mind that he
used to set fire in his own clothes and house." He further stated
that on the day of the incident the appellant did not allow anybody
to enter !iii; hbu~ and had put a lock on the house and his children
took their food outside, and the accused did not talk to ai:ybody.
He further'staled that "prior to this incident the accused was being
E
taken to Bhopal after tying him for the treatment of mind. He
was also taken t«1> Bhavera but the accused did not improve." In
cross-examination it was brought out that "prior to the setting of
fire the accused was neither got admitted .in the government hospital
nor any report was lodged in the· police station." No cross-
examination was directed to· ascert~in the nature of his illness or
to bring out that he was otherwise sane.
Another witness, Than Sin~, D,.w, 2, (the appellant is his
maternal uncle) stated that the apPC\llant "used to do whatever
he thought. He used to run away wherever he liked. He used
to jump in the river also. He used to- enter the house of any-
body. He used to lock his house. -His children used to lie hun-
gry outside. He used to set fire in his clothes also. On ,the day G
of occurrence the condition of the accused was worst. He did not
speak to anybody· on that day." The witness, however, admitted
that the accused had not been taken to Government hospital.
The Trial Court also mentioned that Moolchand, P.W. 3,
Madora, P.W. 4, and Dharma, P.W. 6, admitted that the appel, H
!ant remained in the khalyan throughout the period that the grass
was burning till the chowlddar took him to thana .and did not
utter a word and did not try to run away.
 RATANLAL v. M; P. STATE (Sikri, ].) 255

A The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of Shyamlal, D.W. 1,

Than Singh, D.W. 2, and the behaviour of the accused on that
day came to the conclusion that the accused was insane. He also
relied on the certificates issued by the doctors, mentioned above.
He further found support in the absence of motive for the crime.
He also relied on the fact that the appellant's kha/ayan adjoined
B the kha/ayan which was set on fire by him and if tlle appellant
had been sane he would not have taken the risk of having his
own khalayan bul'IJ.t, which was most likely.
The High Court, with respect, erred in differing from the Trial
Court. The High Court observed that the appellant had not
c examined in defence any expert in mental diseases to substantiate
his plea of legal insanity. It is expecting rather a great deal from
a poor villager that he should produce experts in mental diseases,
specially in view of the certificates issued by the Medical autho-
rities after he was arrested. The High Court farther erred in ·
holding that the medical reports were of no evidential value. . It
is true that the reports speak of the mental state of the accused
D at the time when the reports were issued but the High Court failed
tl)note that the appellant was in police custody from January 23,
1965, and the police could.have produced evideµce to show that
lie was absolutely sane till the day when they sent him for medical "
examination.

The High Court thougilt that the evidence of the two defence
witnesses only suggested an irrational behaviour on the part of
the accused. The High Court failed to note that, according to
D.W, 2, the appellant used to set fire to his own clothes and
house, 'lllld this ~uld hardly be called irrational; it is more like
verging on insanity. ·
p
. The High Court also felt it rather unsafe to rely on the testi-
. mony of the two defence witnesses because such evidence could·
always be procured. It was also impressed by the fact that. there
was no independent witness forthcoming nor was there any evi-
dence showing that the accused was taken to Bhopal or Gwalior
G for treatment. The High Court observed :

"Apart from this, these witnesses merely su~gest that

there was irrational behaviour on the part of 1he accused.
But it has not been proved that he entertained any homi-
cidal tendencies. The evidence adtluced is merely of
H conduct not confirming to the accepted pattern of
human behaviour. Such evidence is inadequate to esta-
blish that there was such an impairment of cognitive
faculties of the accused as to render him legally insane."
 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 3 S.C.R.

Witlt respect, it is not necessary that every insane person should A

have homicidal tendencies. In this case he is not charged for an
offence involving homicide but arson.
Although the High Court discarded the medical evidence, it
to<>k account of its own observations, when it stated :
"We had an opportunity to observe the accused. B
who was produced before us by the learned counsel.
and he appeared to be a man of normal understanding.
We also find that in answering questions which were put
to him by the court under s. 342, Cr. P.C., the accus~d
showed intelligence and care."
With great respect, these are irrelevant considerations. The c
appeal was heard on April 25, 1968, and the incident occurred
on January 22, 1965. A person can surely improve within three
years.
We are inclined to agree with the conclusion arrived at by
the learned Magistrate. We hold that the appellant has dis-
charged the burden. There is no reason why the evidence of D
Shyam Lal, D.W. 1, and Thall Singh, D.W. 2, should not be
believed. It is true that they are relations of the appellar.t, but
it is the relations who are likely to remain in intimate contact.
The behaviour of the appellant on the day of occurrence, failure
of the police to lead evidence as to his condition when the appel-
lant was in custody, and the medical evidence indicate that the [
appellant was insane within the meaning of s. 84, I.P.C.
We accordingly allow the appeal and acquit the appellant of
the offence under s. 435, I.P.C., because at the time of the inci-
dent he was a person of unsound mind within the me:ming of
s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bond shall stand can-
celled. F

G.C. A[>pea/ allowed.

j
J