S.84 IPC | Accused Must Prove "Legal Insanity", Not Medical Insanity: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice R.K. Shrivastava observed-

Even insanity is not exempted under Section 84 of IPC. Every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. There is a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. In order to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC, the accused must prove legal insanity, and not medical insanity. Any person, who is suffering from any kind of mental weakness is called "medical insanity," however "legal insanity" means, person suffering from mental illness should also have a loss of reasoning power. Furthermore, the legal insanity must be at the time of incident. In other words, it can be said that in order to attract legal insanity, a person should be incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or he is doing what is either wrong or either contrary to law. Thus, mere abnormality of mind or compulsive behavior is not sufficient to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

The facts of the case were that the Appellant had physically assaulted his parents and his wife with a lathi (bamboo stick). This had resulted in the death of his mother with the father being grievously hurt. The Appellant was tried and convicted for offences U/S 302, 307 IPC. Aggrieved with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Court to challenge his conviction.

The Appellant did not challenge the findings of the trial court regarding the death of his mother or that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, he submitted that the he was lunatic at the time of incident and that his treatment was simultaneously carried out during the pendency of the trial. Hence, he asserted that he was entitled for the benefit of Section 84 IPC.

Per contra, the State argued that there was nothing on record to suggest that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Examining the submissions of parties and the trial court record, the Court opined that no abnormality was noticed by the lower court whenever the Appellant was produced for the proceedings. Thus, the Court noted that the effect of his psychosis was not continuous. The Court observed that under such circumstances, the medical documents would have thrown much light on the matter. However, the Appellant had failed to produce any document in support of his treatment for mental illness. The Court further noted that even at the time of being arrested, the Appellant had not shown any signs of mental illness.

The Court then brought its attention to the fact that the Appellant had absconded after the incident and was caught a day later, thereby concluding that he must've understood the gravity of his offence-

The incident took place on 26-3-2010 at 1:00 P.M. The Appellant was arrested on 27-3-2012 at 17:30 i.e., on the next day. No mental unsoundness was noticed by Gahlaut Semliya (P.W. 9),who had arrested the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant was arrested on the next day, therefore, it is clear that after committing the offence, he absconded. Thus, it is clear that he was able to understand the gravity of his act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant was of unsound mind at the time of incident. Thus, the Appellant is not entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the Prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, his conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: TUFAN @ TOFAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 176

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment