Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

INDIAN PENAL CODE

State of Rajasthan
vs.
Vidya Devi

Name- Navjit singh

Class- BA. LLB(h)

Section-B

Roll no.- 255/15

Examination roll no.- 13374

1
FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 18.2.1996 at about 2.30 PM when Debilal was in his house, he heard the cries of Magni
wife of Gulab to the effect "Maro-Maro".
2. Upon this, he rushed towards the house of Man Singh (the deceased) and saw that the
accused Vidhya Devi wife of deceased Man Singh was having kulhari in her hand and she
was giving kulhari blow on the head and neck of deceased.
3. As a result of which blood came out and thereafter, after taking 2-3 hiccups, deceased died
on the spot.
4. The kulhari was snatched from the hands of the accused by debilal and Smt. Alol with some
difficulty.
5. At that time, the accused was very much furious and violent and therefore, she was caught
hold with difficulty and her hands were tied after putting them back and thereafter, he rushed
towards the police and lodged the report.
6. It was stated in the report that the accused might have domestic quarrel with the deceased
and, therefore, for that, she had killed her husband deceased and when her mother-in-law
Magni intervened, she was also given kulhari blow by the accused appellant.
7. It was further stated in the report that had the accused would have not been controlled, she
would have also killed her mother-in-law Magni.
8. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died of
hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and injury to brain.
9. She was arrested on 19.2.1996 and at that time, she was having some injuries and she got
medically examined.
10. Before the challan was filed in the Court of Magistrate on 26.4.1996 and after the alleged
incident on 18.2.1996, the accused was sent to Mental Hospital, Jaipur for treatment and she
remained in the Mental Hospital at Jaipur upto 12.10.1999.
11. When the accused was produced before the Court on 12.10.1999, the learned trial Judge
found that her behaviour was abnormal and that is why, she was again sent to the Mental
Hospital, Jaipur.

2
12. She remained again in the Mental Hospital, Jaipur for treatment from 12.10.1999 to
20.11.2001 itself reflects that since the date of commission of crime i.e. 18.2.1996 till
20.11.2001, she was suffering from unsoundness of mind and she was a patient of mental
disease “schizophrenia” and she was under regular treatment for the mental ailment at Mental
Hospital, Jaipur.
13. Report was received from the Mental Hospital, Jaipur stating that she was not in a position to
understand the trial of the court, though she was present in Court on 12.12.2000 and looking
to the abnormal condition of the accused appellant, the charges were not framed and she was
again sent to Mental Hospital, Jaipur for treatment under the provisions of Section 329
Cr.P.C. and further, she was sent to Nari Niketan, Jaipur and file was consigned to record till
the accused returned with full treatment and the report of her mental condition was sought
from the Mental Hospital, Jaipur. The above facts reveal that since the date of commission of
crime, the accused was found abnormal in her behaviour.
14. The order-sheet of the Court of Session dated 18.12.2001 reveals that through letter dated
20.11.2001, it was informed to the Court that now the mental condition of the accused has
improved and she could face trial.
15. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the accused on 18.4.2002 and the trial
commenced and ended in conviction of the accused through impugned judgment and order
dated 9.10.2002.

3
CHARGES INVOLVED

Charges for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused.

Section 302. Punishment for murder.-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.

Section 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- Whoever, except in the
case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for
shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any
corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which
it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by
means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

4
Question of law

1. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just stated
above, the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 84 1PC or not.

5
ARGUMENTS

ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara.

(i) That the statement of Debilal as an eye witness was fully corroborated by another two
eye witnesses Chhogalal and Smt. Alol and thus, placing reliance on the statements of
these three eye witnesses, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused
caused the murder of the deceased by kulhari.
(ii) That the theory as put forward by the accused that she was a lady of unsound mind at the
time of alleged incident, was not accepted by the learned trial Judge.
(iii)That no doubt there was no apparent motive on the part of the accused to murder
deceased, still placing reliance on the statements of eye witnesses, the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner as indicated above.

ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The following submissions have been made by the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused:-

(i) That the eye witnesses Debilal, Chhogalal and Alol, on which reliance has been placed by
the learned trial Judge, are relatives of the deceased and therefore, they are interested
witnesses and thus, their statements should have not been believed by the learned trial
Judge.
(ii) That the case of the prosecution that on the information of the accused appellant, kulhari
in question was recovered is palpably wrong as there is ample evidence on record that
kulhari was handed over to the police by Debilal.
(iii)That at the time of alleged incident, the accused was suffering from the mental disease
schizophrenia and therefore, she was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.

Thus, it was prayed that the findings of conviction recorded against the accused be set aside and
she be acquitted of all the charges framed against her.

6
CONSIDERING OF THE ARGUMENTS BY COURT

Firstly

Hon'ble court looked the statements of the eye witnesses Debilal, Chhogalal and Smt. Alol and
stated that their testimony cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are relatives of the
deceased.

It was stated that a close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case,
cannot be regarded as an “interested witness”. But for accepting the evidence of a relative
witness it should be subjected to careful and close scrutiny and interested witnesses are not
necessarily false witnesses. Further Simply because an eye witness happened to be relative of the
deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable.

Therefore, in the present case the statement of eye witnesses of Debilal and Smt. Alol that the
accused committed the murder of the deceased with kulhari and the accused also caused injuries
to her mother-in-law Magni with kulhari appear to be straight forward, reliable and trustworthy
and fully corroborated by the medical evidence which is found in the statement of Dr. A.K.
Mathur. It cannot reasonably be inferred or presumed that they were telling lie or falsely
implicating the accused appellant.

Thus, hon'ble high court stated that if the learned trial Judge placed reliance on the statements of
eye witnesses Debilal, Chhogalal and Smt. Alol has come to the conclusion that the accused has
committed the murder of the deceased with kulhari and she has also caused injuries to her
mother-in-law Magni with kulhari, he has committed no illegality in doing so. Simply because
Debilal, Chhogalal and Smt. Alol happen to be relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot
be discarded, as their testimony is worth reliable and fully corroborated by medical evidence.

Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that since Debilal, Chhogalal and
Smt. Alol are relatives of the deceased therefore, they are interested witnesses and thus, their
statements should have not been believed by the learned trial Judge, was rejected.

7
Secondly

Considering the argument that kulhari in question was not recovered at the instance of the
accused was concerned, there was some force in that argument as Debilal had stated that kulhari
in question was handed over by him to the police and therefore, the statement of Bahadur Singh
(SHO) that he recovered the kulhari in question at the instance of the accused cannot be
accepted. Hence, the evidence of recovery was of no use to the prosecution.

But, it was stated that where there is direct evidence, the evidence of recovery is of little
importance and thus, if the evidence of recovery of kulhari at the instance of the accused is
rejected, it would not affect the testimony of the eye witnesses.

Thirdly

The case of the learned counsel for the accused was that the accused was suffering from mental
disease schizophrenia at the time of alleged incident and from the record, it was clear that the
trial could have not proceeded because she remained in the Mental Hospital, Jaipur for many
years and thus, since at the time of commission of crime, the accused was a lady of unsoundness
of mind and incapable of knowing the nature of the act, therefore, causing of death of the
deceased by the accused was not an offence and she was entitled to acquittal.

To appreciate the contention, first factual scenario of the case was considered and summarized in
the following manner:-

(i) That there was no dispute on the point that the deceased was husband of the accused and
at the time of commission of crime, the accused was a young lady of 27 years of age and
apparent motive is not available on the record; which could have thrown light as to for
what purpose, the accused committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, there is a lack of
motive.
(ii) Facts showed Debilal reached on the spot, he found that the accused was very much
furious and, violent and that is why, with the help of Smt. Alol and one another person,
both the hands of the accused were tied down after putting them back. Thus, the fact that

8
the accused was very much violent and furious when she gave kulhari blow to the
deceased was well established.
(iii) It was also stated that had the hands of the accused would have not been tied down, she
would have also committed the murder of her mother-in-law Magni. This fact also
reveals that the accused was very much violent and furious at that time.

The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just stated, the accused
is entitled to benefit of Section 84 IPC or not.

For convenience, Section 84 IPC was reproduced here:-

"Section 84. 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."

Before proceeding further, something should be said about the fundamental principle of criminal
law.

A fundamental principle of criminal law is that mens rea (guilty mind) is an essential element in
every offence and no crime can be said to have been committed if the mind of the person doing
the act is not guilty. Since criminal act is an indispensable element in every crime, a person
incapable of entertaining such intent cannot incur legal guilt. Idiots and lunatics are, therefore,
not liable in criminal law for their acts. It has been said that a mad man is best punished by his
own madness. (Furiosus furore suo punier); or that a mad man has no will (Furiosus nulla
voluntus est); or a mad man is like one who is absent (Furiosus absentis loco est).

To establish that an act done cannot be said to be an offence as covered by Section 84 IPC, the
following elements must be present:-

(i) The accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the act; and
(ii) By reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of
the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

9
Apart from this, there are certain principles to be borne in mind before applying Section 84 IPC
and they are as follows:-

a) every type of insanity is not legal insanity; the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as
to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong
or contrary to law;
b) The Court shall presume the absence of such insanity
c) The burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused though it is not as heavy as on the
prosecution to prove an offence;
d) The Court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time
when the offence was committed;
e) In reaching such a conclusion, the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed
the crime are relevant consideration; and
f) The prosecution in discharging its burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has
merely to prove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of law that everyone
knows the law and the natural consequences of his act.

There is no dispute on the point that the accused was suffering from the disease "schizophrenia"
and it is one of the types of insanity.

Schizophrenia is one of the forms of insanity. Each case of schizophrenia has to be considered on
its own merits. It is an illness of slow insidious onset developing over years. There may be report
of strange, odd inappropriate behaviour.

In State v. Mohinder Singh1, where the evidence disclosed that the accused was suffering from
schizophrenia and this state existed before and after the occurrence, it was held that the defence
of insanity had been established.

1
(1983) 2 SCC 274

10
DECISION OF THE COURT

Hon'ble court considered the principles and looked to the factual position considered that in the
present case, the accused has proved the existence of circumstances bringing her case within the
purview of Section 84 IPC in the following manner:-

(i) At the time of committing the murder of deceased, the accused was very much
furious and violent and she was controlled with difficulty and if she would not have
been controlled, she would have also committed murder of her mother-in-law Magni
and that fact clearly establishes that at the time of committing the murder of deceased,
the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as
not to know the nature and quality of the act she was doing or, if she did know it, that
she did not know she was doing what was wrong or contrary to law.
(ii) That no doubt crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be
established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the facts narrated
clearly establish that the accused was unsoundness of mind when she committed the
murder of deceased and further developments also clearly revealed that she was a
patient of mental disease “schizophrenia”, which is one of the forms of insanity.
(iii) That before the challan was filed in the Court of Magistrate on 26.4.1996 and after
the alleged incident on 18.2.1996, the accused was sent to Mental Hospital, Jaipur for
treatment and she remained in the Mental Hospital at Jaipur upto 12.10.1999 and this
period clearly shows that her disease was chronic in nature and that is why, she had to
face treatment continuously for three years at Mental Hospital, Jaipur.
Not only this, when the accused was produced before the Court on 12.10.1999, the
learned trial Judge found that her behaviour was abnormal and that is why, she was
again sent to the Mental Hospital, Jaipur and that fact also reflects that the mental
condition of the accused was abnormal and she was suffering from unsoundness of
mind.
Furthermore, the fact that she remained again in the Mental Hospital, Jaipur for
treatment from 12.10.1999 to 20.11.2001 itself reflects that since the date of
commission of crime i.e. 18.2.1996 till 20.11.2001, she was suffering from

11
unsoundness of mind and she was a patient of mental disease “schizophrenia” and she
was under regular treatment for the mental ailment at Mental Hospital, Jaipur.
(iv) That the facts disclosed that the accused was suffering from the mental disease
"schizophrenia" and that state existed before and after the occurrence and therefore, in
these circumstances, it can easily be concluded that the defence of insanity stands
proved.

Thus, regarding the nature of burden on the accused, it was stated that the accused had proved
the existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get
benefit of Section 84 IPC. Apart from this, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused
was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and thus, she
was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.

In coming to conclusion, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao
Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra2, was referred to where the appellant of that case was also
suffering from the same disease "schizophrenia" and the facts of that case and the present case
are similar to some extent and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion
that the accused appellant of that case was entitled to benefit under Section 84 IPC.

Therefore, For the reasons stated, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and order
dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara was set aside
and the accused was entitled to acquittal after giving benefit of Section 84 IPC.

2
2002 Cri LJ 4356

12
CRITICAL APPRAISAL

The law laid down in this case is correct. To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must
clearly be proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under
such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act
he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong or contrary
to law. The first aspect refers to the offender's consciousness of the bearing of his act on those
who are affected by it and the second and third, to his consciousness of its relation to himself. If
he did not know it, he was responsible. The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind
should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed. The mere fact that on
former occasions the accused had been occasionally subject to insane delusions or had suffered
from derangement of the mind or that subsequently he had at times behaved like a mentally
deficient person is per se insufficient to bring his case within the exemption. However, in a
generality of cases, it may not be possible to prove unsoundness of mind at the exact time of
commission of the offence. In order to ascertain whether the accused was insane at the time of
commission of the offence, it may be relevant to consider the state of such person's mind
immediately preceding as well as subsequent to the commission of the offence. The state of mind
before and after the act is relevant though not conclusive. Generally speaking, the pattern of
crime, the circumstances under which it was committed, the manner and method of its execution,
and the behaviour of the offender before or after the commission of the crime furnish some of the
important clues to ascertain whether the accused had no cognitive faculty to know the nature of
the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. In this the accused
satisfied all the conditions of Section-84 of Indian Penal Code and therefore acquittal was a right
decision.

13
RECENT JUDGMENTS
1. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 602

On 10th March, 1999 at about 7.15 a.m., while Pujari Tulsi Das (deceased) was in the
Raghunathji's temple. The respondent abruptly hurled a stone on his head resulting into his
instantaneous death. The respondent also damaged the idol and other properties of the
temple. This all was unprovoked. The incident was witnessed by the villagers including
Santosh, Narsingh Ram and, Smt. Tiku Devi. After investigation, the police filed the
challan upon which, the respondent was committed to the appropriate Court of Sessions for
trial. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 295 and 449 Indian Penal Code.
Accused hurled a stone on deceased which caused head injuries on the deceased. Deceased
fell on the ground and subsequently collapsed. According to Doctor the cause of death was
shock and haemorrhage due to head injury According to the respondent, his mental
condition right from the year 1992-1993 was not good and occasionally he suffered from
fits of insanity. He had undergone treatment for the same. He has stated that in the jail also,
he was receiving the treatment. To put it simply, he claimed the defence of insanity under
section-84 IPC. Hon’ble court stated that prosecution version that accused hurled a stone
on deceased which caused head injuries on the deceased. Deceased fell on the ground and
subsequently collapsed. According to Doctor the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage due to head injury. The Doctor, however, is his statement did not state before
court that injuries caused by accused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. It is also not recorded in the post-mortem report. This is a serious deficiency
in the case of the prosecution. Accused acquitted inter alia, on this ground, in the facts of
case. Accused took up defence of mental disorder and was able to prove by Medical
evidence that he was suffering from Epileps. According to medical evidence when there is
Epileptic attack, a patient behaves like an insane person and he is unable to recognise even
the known persons and relatives. During this time, there is a memory loss and the patient
can commit any offence. Therefore, hon’ble supreme court upheld the judgment of
acquittal by the High Court.

14
2. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand 2011 Cri LJ 1161

On 11th of August, 2000 the deceased Chandrashekhar Choubey was going in a car driven
by Vidyut Kumar Modi and when reached Chas Nala crossing, he asked the driver to stop
the car and call Shasdhar Mukherjee, the owner of Sulekha Auto Parts. As directed, the
driver called said Shasdhar Mukherjee and the deceased started talking to him from inside
the car. All of a sudden the appellant, the owner of the Medical Hall came there with a
country- made pistol, pushed Shasdhar Mukherjee aside and fired at point-blank range at
the deceased. The driver fled away from the place of occurrence and informed the family
members of the deceased, leaving the deceased in the car itself. Vinod Kumar Choubey
along with the driver came back and rushed the deceased to the Chas Nala Colliery
Hospital, where he was declared dead. On the basis of the report a case under Section of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant being a
person of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence, his act comes within
general exception as provided under Section of the Indian Penal Code and hence the
appellant deserves to be acquitted. Nobody had appeared on behalf of the respondent.
However, we have perused the records and bestowed our consideration to the submission
advanced by appellant. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind , Section of
Indian Penal Code will not come to his rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew
that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that,
it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding,
attending and following the crime. Behaviour of accused pertaining to a desire for
concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long
way of ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him. Medical
evidence showed that he had paranoid feeling. Plea of unsoundness of mind rejected.
Held:- Immediately after the accused shot deed the deceased he ran away from the place of
occurrence and threw the country-made pistol, the weapon of crime, in the well in order to
conceal himself from the crime. Aforesaid conduct of accused goes to suggest that he knew
that whatever he had done was wrong and illegal. To establish that acts done are not
offence and come within general exception it is required to be proved that at the time of

15
commission of the act, accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of
knowing that his acts were wrong or contrary to law. It was Held that every person who is
suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere
fact that the 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 affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short
intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the
behaviour is queer are not sufficient to attract the application of Section.

16

S-ar putea să vă placă și