PETITIONER:
RATANLAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17/12/1970
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M.
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M.
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA
DUA, I.D.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 778 1971 SCR (3) 251
1970 SCC (3) 533
ACT:
Indian Penal Code, s. 84-General exceptions-Plea of Insanity
must be proved to have existed at time of commission of
offence Burden of proof is on accused-Burden is not higher
than that on parties to civil proceedings-Relatives of
accused as defence witnesses-Need not be disbelieved on that
ground-They have opportunity to know accused intimately-
Failure of accused to produce expert evidence in defence-
Adverse inference need not be drawn.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant set fire to grass lying near a khalyan. He
was arrested next day From February 23, 1965 when he was
arrested to February 2, 1965, he was in police custody and
thereafter sent to jail. The Assistant Surgeon, the Civil
Surgeon, and the Psychiatrist of the mental hospital to
which he was referred reported that he was depressed and
silent. According to the Psychiatrist he was a lunatic in
terms of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. At is trial under s.
435 of the Indian Penal Code two of his relatives appeared
as defence witnesses and testified that he was mentally
unsound. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on 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, reversed the judgment. In appeal
by special leave,
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 though the burden is no higher than
that which rests upon a party to civil preceedings. [252 E]
State of Madya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 583 and
D. C. Thakker v. State of Gujarat, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 361,
referred to.
In the present case the appellant had 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 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 appellant was in custody, and the medical
evidence indicated that the appellant was insane within the
meaning of s. 84 I.P.C.[256 D]
The High Court was wrong in drawing an adverse inference
against the accused on the ground that he had 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 authorities after he was
arrested. [2-55 C]
The High Court’s observation that the appellant appeared to
be of normal understanding and the fact that he had given
intelligent answers. to questions under s. 342 Cr.P.C., were
irrelevant considerations in view of the time that had
elapsed since the alleged commission of the offence. [256 B-
C]
252
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 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 J. C. Talwar, for the appellant.
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed a aginst
the judgment 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 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 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, I.P.C.
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 of on the accused. (See State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Ahmadullah) (1). In D. C. Thakker v. State of
Gujarat(2) it was laid down that “there is a rebuttable presu
mption 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 al, documentary
or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no
higher than that which rests upon a party to civil pro-
cedings.” It was further observed :
“The crucial point of time for ascertaining
the state of mind of the accused is the time
when the offence was circumstances 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 circumstances which preceded, attended and
followed the crime.
The learned counsel contends that if regard is had to the
circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the
crime it would be clear that the accused is entitled to the
benefit of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
(1) [1961] 3S.C.R.583.
(2) [1964] 7S.C.R.361.
253
The prosecution case is that on January 22, 1965, the appel-
lant 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 fire. 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 February 2, 1965, when it was found
that the accused needed medical examination, and accordingly
the District Magistrate ordered that he be medically
examined. No explanation has been given why he was kept in
police custody all that 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
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 he would have been
examined by the jail doctor.
On February 20, 1965, V. S. Vaidya, Assistant Surgeon,.
Civil Hospital, Vidisha, reported to the Jailor, Sub Jail,
Vidisha, as follows :
“Subject, In Ref. to your letter No. 295 dated
8-2-1965. Sir,
Ratanlal Prisoner was kept under observation
as indoor patient during this time. He was
keeping silent, he 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, Vidisha,. reported as follows:
“Shri Ratanlal, undertrial, was examined by
me. He does not appear to be deaf or dumb, but
is mentally retarded. He should be referred
to Stiperintendent, Mental Hospital, Gwalior,
for expert opinion.”
On March 29, 1965, Dr. B. Shah. Psychiatrist
and Superintendent,Mental Hospital, Gwalior,
reported as follows:
“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 of
Indian Lunancy Act; 1912. He is not
dangerous,
254
and/or violents by reason of Lunancy and thus
unfit to be at large. The report is based on
the following facts observed here :-
(1) Remains depressed.
(2) Does not talk.
(3) He is a case of Maniac depressive.
(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 recovery.
The defence also led evidence as to his condition before the
incident in question. Shyamlal, D. W. 1, son-in-law of the
appellant 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 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
his house and had put a lock on the house and his children
took their food outside, and the accused did not talk to
anybody. He further stated that “prior to this incident the
accused was being taken to Bhopal after tying him for the
treatment of mind. He was also taken to 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 ascertain the nature of his
illness or to bring out that he was otherwise sane.
Another witness, Than Singh, D.W. 2, (the appellant is his
maternal uncle) stated that the appellant “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 anybody. He used to lock his house. His’ children
used to lie hungry outside. He used to set fire in his
clothes also. On the day 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 Dhanna, P.W. 6. admitted that the
appellant remained in the khalyan throughout the period that
the grass was burning till the chowkidar took him to thana
and did not utter a word and did not try to run away.
255
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 khalayan adjoined the khalayan which was set on
fire by him and if the appellant had been sane he would not
have taken the risk of having his own khalayan burnt, 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 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 authorities after he was
arrested. The High Court further 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 at the
time when the reports were issued but the High Court failed
to note that the appellant was in police custody from
January 23, 1965, and the police could have produced
evidence to show that he was absolutely sane till the day
when they sent him for medical examination.,
The High Court thought 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, and this could hardly be called
irrational it is more like verging on insanity.
The High Court also felt it rather unsafe to rely on the
testimony 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 evidence showing that the accused was taken to
Bhopal or Gwalior for treatment. The High Court observed:
“Apart from this, these witnesses merely
suggest that there was irrational behaviour on
the part of the accused. But it has not been
proved that he entertained any homicidal
tendencies. The evidence adduced is merely of
conduct not confirming to the accepted pattern
of human behaviour. Such evidence is
inadequate to establish that there was such an
impairment of cognitive faculties of the
accused as to render him legally insane.”
256
With respect, it is not necessary that every insane person
should 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
took account of its own observations, when it stated
“We had an opportunity to observe the accused,
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 accused showed
intelligence and care.”
With great respect, these are irrelevant considerations.
The 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
Shyam Lal, D.W. 1, and Than Singh, D.W. 2, should not be
believed. It is true that they are relations of the
appellant, 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 appellant 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
incident he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning
of s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bond shall
stand cancelled.
G.C. Appeal allowed.
257