The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that to bring a case within the ambit of Section 84 IPC, legal insanity has to be proved.
The single-judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice R.K. Shrivastava while adjudicating upon an appeal differentiated between the Medical and Legal insanity and observed that every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility.
The appellant has bben convicted under Section 302 and 307 of IPC. It was submitted that the appellant was a lunatic at the time of incident, and his treatment was also done during the pendency of the Trial, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
Per contra, the Counsel for the State submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
The Court while considering the law governing the defence of unsoundness, at the outset mentioned MOHD.ANWAR vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), 2020 Latest Caselaw 459 SC, Bapu @ Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Latest Caselaw 479 SC, Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala, 2010 Latest Caselaw 809 SC, and few others.
The Court noted that though Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of crime committed by a person with mental illness, “Unsoundness of mind” has not been defined in IPC.
"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"
Ruling that in order to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC, the accused must prove legal insanity, and not medical insanity, the Court said:
"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."
The Court thus observed 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 and mere abnormality of mind or compulsive behavior is not sufficient to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
In the present matter, the Court opined that whenever, the Appellant was produced before the Trial Court, no abnormality was noticed by the Court and therefore it can be said that the effect of psychosis was not continuous.
Noting that the Appellant did not produce even a single document to show that he was being treated for mental illness, the Court was of the view that the same were neccessary to substantiate the claim.
"The Appellant was arrested from the bus stand with lathi. At the time of arrest, the arresting officer, did not notice any mental illness. Even the Trial Court did not notice any mental illness on the date when he was produced for the first time. Even assuming that he was suffering from psychosis, then it is clear that it was not in continuity but was in intervals."
The Court thus concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and sentence was uphled.
CASE TITLE:TUFAN @ TOFAN SON vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.704 of 2017
CORAM: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice R.K. Shrivastava
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
