Mere Lack Of Motive In Absence Of Proof Of 'Legal Insanity' Will Not Attract Exception Of Unsoundness Of Mind U/S 84 IPC: Kerala High Court

A Division bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha held that intent and act must concur for constituting a crime, but in the case of insane persons, no culpability can be fastened on them as they have no free will. Court added that the benefit of unsoundness of mind is available only if it is proved that during the commission of the offence, the accused due to defect of reason and disease of the mind was unable know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was contrary to law.

It observed thus:

“It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to comprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of a plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section.”

The accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering his own eight-year old son at their residence. The prosecution case was that the accused murdered his son by hacking and cutting with chopper and coconut scrapper/grater. Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Against the conviction, he approached the High Court.

The High Court found that the postmortem report and the testimony of the witnesses prove that the accused had committed the murder of the child. The main issue before the Court was whether the accused was entitled to benefit under Section 84 of IPC. According to Section 84, nothing is an offence done by a person of unsound mind who was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him.

The defence argued that there was no motive established by the prosecution, and even after committing the offence, accused did not make any attempt to escape. The accused was admitted in hospital due to mental illness before and after the commission of the offence. Also, it was averred that the investigating officer had failed to investigate and report the fact of insanity of the accused to the court.

Contrary to this, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the accused might be medically insane, but was not legally insane while committing the offence.

The Court found that the final report was submitted by the investigating officer concealing the mental insanity of the accused. Court relied on Bapu v State of Rajasthan (2007) to state that the failure of investigation into the mental illness of the accused creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case , they also failed to prove mens rea and that the benefit of doubt was to be given to the accused.

Court held that for deciding whether the benefit of Section 84 ought to be given, relevance has to be given to the time during which the crime was committed. It held that there was a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. Court held that mere lack of motive was no indication of insanity or lack of mens rea for the commission of the crime. It held thus:

“Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant, and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time………….. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past, or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this Section.”

Regarding mental illness of the accused, the Court found that there was evidence to prove that the accused was under treatment before and after the incident. It observed that there was evidence that the accused was a nuisance to the people of the locality. It was found that he used to trespass into others properties and used knife to extract money from them. The Court found that based on mass complaint to the District Collector, the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, sent the accused to the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The Court was also unable to find an answer as to why the accused might have murdered his son without any other reasons.

The Court held that the accused was suffering from Bipolar affective disorder. It found that this was a serious and major mental illness and that the accused would have no awareness about the consequences of his act. Court found that he would get auditory hallucinations and maniac episodes. The Court relied upon Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964) to state that in criminal jurisprudence, the burden was upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Court relied upon T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2001) to state that it was sufficient if the accused was able to bring the case within any of the general exceptions under the IPC, he succeeds because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. The Court observed thus:

“It is sufficient if the accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. Here, doubts do arise in our mind as to whether the accused had the required mens rea to commit the offence. In such circumstances, it can only be held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

The Court found that accused was entitled to benefit of unsoundness of mind u/s 84 of IPC. It found that the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the accused or that he committed the murder of his child with intention to attract punishment for murder. Thus, the Court acquitted the accused. The Court, under the provisions of Mental Healthcare Act and CrPC, ordered for the detention of the accused in one of the mental health establishments in the State.

Case title: Rejis Thomas @Vayalar V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

Case number: Crl. A No. 43/ 2023

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate Rajesh K Babu

Counsel for the respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi