Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence Of Man Who Killed Wife While Suffering From 'Unsoundness Of Mind'

The Gauhati High Court has recently set aside the life sentence awarded to a man who had killed his own wife after the Court found that at the time of the occurrence, he was suffering from 'mental unsoundness', which was of such a degree that he was unable to understand the consequences of his actions.

With this, the Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Malasri Nandi acquitted one Zakir Hussain, as it concluded that in all probability, he was suffering from "mental un-soundness" while he killed his wife, and thus, his case would come within the ambit of section 84 of IPC.

It may be noted Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus-

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 case in brief

The prosecution case, in a nutshell, was that on December 13, 2012, the appellant/convict had hacked his wife Manjuara Bibi (deceased) on her neck with a dao and thereafter, he, tried to commit suicide. 

By the judgment dated June 27, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

However, it was the prime defense of the accused that at the time of the incident, he was suffering from some form of psychological disorder and therefore, he was incapable of understanding the consequences of his action.

Court's observations

The Court, in its analysis of the judgment delivered by the lower court, the evidence adduced, and the arguments advanced, observed that two defense witnesses had brought on record, the paranoid features involving the appellant thereby strongly suggesting that he was suffering from some form of "mental un-soundness" just a few months before the occurrence. The Court noted that the opinion of the Medical Board too supported such a conclusion.

Further, the Court also took into account the confessional statement of the accused. The Court found that there were sufficient symptoms demonstrating some form of " psychiatric disorder" akin to " bipolar disorder" suffered by him even at the time of the incident which could have denuded the appellant of his ability of thinking and judgment.

"We say so because unless a person was suffering from some form of "depression" it wouldn't be possible for him to kill his wife sleeping next to him for no rhyme or reason and then try to commit suicide by hitting his head with a 'dao' by ignoring the fact that he had small children at home. The accused also did not try to flee or destroy any evidence although he had the opportunity to do so. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant would not have resorted to such a behavior had he been in a position to comprehend the consequences of his conduct," the Court strrssed.

Now, the question before the Court was as to whether his case would come within the ambit of Section 84 of IPC. The Court referred to the Apex Court's decision in the case of Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 495, wherein it was observed that the accused must prove "legal unsoundness" of mind and not merely medical unsoundness of mind at the time of occurrence.

"The burden to prove such fact was upon the accused but the accused is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt but has merely to satisfy the requirement of the preponderance of probability," the Court added.

Against this backdrop, analyzing the facts of the case, the Court noted that the accused had succeeded in establishing, by a preponderance of probability, that he was suffering from " unsoundness of mind" not only before and after the occurrence but also at the time of the incident which was of such nature that it can be referred to as " legal insanity".

Consequently, the appellant was acquitted from the charge brought under Section 302 of the IPC on the ground of "mental unsoundness", however, the Court refused to order his release and directed that he be detained in safe custody, in such a place, and in such a manner, as the learned trial court may think fit and proper so as to eliminate the potential threat to the life of any person(s) living in his close proximity.

"The learned trial court is also granted liberty to consider application, if any, filed by a near relative or friend of the appellant under Section 335(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. after recording proper satisfaction that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 335 of the Cr.P.C. are fully satisfied," the Court added.

Case title - ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 47

Click Here To Read/Download Order