In
the case decided on 18.04.2013, titled as “Mariappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu”,
bearing Criminal Appeal No 926 of 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed
section 84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as to what constitute insanity as
defence.
The
Court has held that:
At the time of commission of offence, the
physical and mental condition of the person concerned is paramount for bringing
the case within the purview of Section 84.
[Para 15]
Person, who, at the time of doing it, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, commits anything, he is permitted to claim the
above exception. In other words, insanity or unsoundness of mind are the stages
when a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or unable to
understand what is wrong or right and must relate to the period in which the
offence has been committed. [Para 10]
On
Burden of proving insanity
Though the burden of proving an offence is
always on the prosecution and never shifts, however, the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within the exception under Section 84 IPC lies
on the accused. [Para 11]
The
Court noted the following point and held that section 84 is not attracted:
(i)
Although the Doctor (DW-1) who
treated the accused has stated that the accused was
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001, it is not
in dispute that after 08.08.2001, there is no material or information on record
that he was suffering from the same. It is relevant to mention that the date of
occurrence was 05.11.2001 i.e. nearly after three months of the treatment.
(ii)
The termination [on the ground that the accused was suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia] order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF,
New Delhi is also not helpful because of the language used in Section 84 of IPC
[it was of earlier date].
(iii)
DW-2, the father of the accused has not stated anything about the behaviour of
the deceased. He has also not stated anything that he is a mentally ill person
and not able to do his routine works properly. In fact, it was brought to our
notice, a letter where by accused made a written request to the Department [CRPF]
for rejoining stating improvement in his health.
(iv)
The Accused came to the house of deceased one day prior to the occurrence,
demanded money and threatened the deceased of grave consequences and on the
next day, when the demand was not fulfilled, he trespassed into the house,
pushed away PWs 1 and 2, bolted the door from inside and inflicted repeated
aruval blows on the deceased resulted into her death.
(v)
The accused himself was examined as a DW-3. As a witness, he made his statement
clearly and cogently and it was also observed that he was meticulously
following the court proceedings, acting suitably when the records were
furnished for perusal. During the entire proceedings, the accused has nowhere
stated that he was insane earlier to the date of incident.
The
Court also quoted the following portions of “Sudhakaran vs. State of
Kerala, (2010) 10 SCC 582.
“26. The defence of
insanity has been well known in the English legal system for many centuries. In the earlier times, it was usually advanced
as a justification for seeking pardon. Over a period of time, it was used as a
complete defence to criminal liability in offences involving mens rea. It is
also accepted that insanity in medical terms is distinguishable from legal
insanity. In most cases, in India, the defence of insanity seems to be pleaded
where the offender is said to be suffering from the disease of schizophrenia.
28. The medical
profession would undoubtedly treat the appellant herein as a mentally sick
person. However, for the purposes of
claiming the benefit of the defence of insanity in law, the appellant would
have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when
the crime was committed, as not to know the nature of the act.”
“35. It is also a
settled proposition of law that the crucial point of time for ascertaining the
existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84
is the time when the offence is committed. We may notice here the observations
made by this Court in Ratan Lal v. State of M.P. In para 2 of the aforesaid
judgment, it is held as follows:
“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 is
actually committed and the burden of proving this lies on the [appellant].”
The
Court has dismissed the appeal.