Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra
 Insc 404 (26
& H.K. Sema. Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, is the main plea
that has been urged before us for reversing the conviction and sentence in
appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life. The appeal against conviction and sentence having been
dismissed by the High Court, this appeal has been filed on grant of leave.
put, the prosecution case is that the appellant was a Police Constable. He and Surekha
were married in the year 1987. On the date of the incident, they were living in
police quarters along with their daughter. On the morning of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrel between
husband and wife. While Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the
appellant hit her with grinding stone on her head. The appellant was
immediately taken by the police to the quarter guard.
was taken to the Hospital. She was found dead. After usual investigation, the
appellant was charged for the offence of murder of his wife.
appreciation of evidence, the appellant was found guilty by the Sessions Court.
The evidence was again appreciated by the High Court.
judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed. We have heard learned counsel and
have perused the record. In our opinion also, there is enough cogent evidence
to prove that the appellant killed his wife.
the only aspect to be considered is the defence of insanity of the appellant.
That defence has not found favour with the Sessions Court and the High Court.
Dr. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curie has
vehemently and ably argued that the appellant was suffering from insanity at
the time of alleged killing of his wife and was, thus, entitled to benefit of
general exception contained in Section 84 IPC. With equal vehemence and ability,
Mr. Arun Pednekar argued that the appellant killed his wife not because of
insanity but on account of extreme anger, which is different from insanity.
counsel for the State, relying upon prosecution witnesses, contended that the
appellant, earlier than the date of incident, used to quarrel with his wife;
drink excessive liquor and used to get excited and this evidence proves that
he, by nature, was a man of extreme anger.
fit of extreme anger, he killed his wife.
other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish the plea of
unsoundness of mind, drew our attention to the depositions of Dr. Arun (DW2)
and Dr. Pramod (DW3). The case history and other proved medical record shows
that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was an indoor
patient at a Government hospital from 28th October, 1993 to 5th November, 1993 for getting treatment for the said ailment. It further
stands established that he was suffering from this disease at least from 20th April, 1992. He was examined by DW3 on 20th April, 1992 having visited the said doctor with
his wife. It also stands established that 25 times he was taken to hospital for
treatment of his mental ailment from 27th June, 1994 to 5th December, 1994. DW2 deposed that the appellant was examined by him on 27th October, 1993.
suffered from suspicious idea persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and
excitement and was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. The appellant was
intermittently becoming apprehensive and excited. DW3 deposed that on 20th April 1992, he examined the appellant brought
by his wife.
was history of psychiatric illness in father at the age of 65 years and in 1989
his father ran away from the house. People used to take advantage of his mental
condition and cheat him. After marriage his mental condition worsened. On
examination, he was found suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The patient
had visual hallucination (seing images of wife and children). He was brought to
hospital 25 times as above. Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disease. It can
recur. When a person is under paranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his
activities and its consequences.
the commission of offence a result of extreme anger or unsoundness of mind is
the question to be decided? From the aforesaid evidence, it has been proved
that there was a family history of psychiatric illness. The father of the
appellant was suffering from the ailment at the age of 65 and in 1989 his
father ran away from the house.
is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and
dangers flowing from this ailment. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority
of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness
is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur,
which gradually develops into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations
follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but are
afterwards changes into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite,
but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe
that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He
believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his
room, and people are plotting against him to ruin him.
of general sensation gives rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the
effects of hypnotism, electricity wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The
patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable
hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are
interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important
man. The nature of delusions thus may change from prosecutory to the grandiose
type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally
conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually
retains his money and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until
the conversations is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he
is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of
danger to himself and to others. [Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
(22nd Edn.)] Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still
not known but hereditary plays a part. The irritation and excitement are
effects of illness. On delusion affecting behaviour of patient, he is source of
danger to himself and to others.
view of the medical evidence, Mr. Arun Pednekar, learned counsel appearing for
the State, very rightly submitted that the prosecution cannot question that the
appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind prior to and after the date of
the commission of the offence. Even otherwise, it stands proved from the
aforesaid evidence of depositions of the Government Doctors who, it appears,
deposed on the basis of the medical record, that the appellant was suffering
from paranoid schizophrenia long before the commission of the offence and the
ailment continued thereafter as well. What has, however, been urged by Mr. Pednekar
is that the appellant has failed to prove that he was suffering from
unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offence. The submission is
that the fact that the appellant was suffering from the ailment before or after
the commission of the offence is of no consequence when the appellant has
failed to prove he was suffering from that ailment at the time when the offence
burden to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind and as a result thereof
he was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence.
Section 84 IPC is one of the provision in Chapter IV IPC which deals with
"general exceptions". That section provides that 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 burden of proving the
existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84
lies upon the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the
said section, the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Illustration (a) to Section 105 is as follows :] "(a) A, accused of
murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the
nature of the act.
burden of proof is on A." The question whether the appellant has proved
the existence of circumstances bringing his case within the purview of Section
84 will have to be examined from the totality of circumstances. The unsoundness
of mind as a result whereof one is incapable of knowing consequences is a state
of mind of a person which, ordinarily can be inferred from the circumstances.
If, however, an act is committed out of extreme anger and not as a result of
unsoundness of mind, the accused would not be entitled to the benefit of
exception as contained in Section 84 IPC. In fact, that is the contention of
the learned counsel for the State. It was contended that the prosecution
evidence has established that the appellant by nature was an angry person and
under the fit of extreme anger, he committed the murder of his wife as there
was fight between them that morning and there is nothing to show that at the
relevant time the appellant was under an attack of paranoid schizophrenia.
this stage, it is necessary to notice the nature of the burden that is required
to be discharged by the accused to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakker v. State of Gujarat [(1964) 7 SCR 361] this Court has held that even if
the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the
time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court may raise a
reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the
ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case
the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the
general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.
burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no higher than that rests
upon a party to civil proceedings which, in other words, means preponderance of
probabilities. This Court held that :
doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be
stated in the following propositions :
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had
committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving
that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the
There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he
committed the crime, in the sense laid down by s.84 of the Indian Penal Code:
the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidenceoral,
documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher
than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.
Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane
at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by
the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of
the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens
rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the
accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the
prosecution was not discharged." In support of the contention that the
crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing
the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC is the time when the offence is
committed, the learned counsel relied upon the following passage from the aforenoticed
a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the
time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what
was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining
the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed.
Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the
benefit of s.84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances
which preceded, attended and followed the crime." Undoubtedly, the state
of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved
so as to get the benefit of the exception.
have already noticed earlier that unsoundness of mind preceding occurrence and
following the occurrence stands proved. It has rightly not been questioned by
learned counsel for the State. Regarding the state of mind of the accused at
the time of commission of offence, in our opinion, ordinarily that would be an
aspect to be inferred from the circumstances. Further, as earlier noticed, the
nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher than that which rests
upon a party to civil proceedings.
circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these:
appellant has a family history his father was suffering from psychiatric
Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part.
Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed as
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment
of ailment 25 times to hospital.
Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.
weak motive of killing of wife being that she was opposing the idea of the
appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.
Killing in day light no attempt to hide or run away.
Pednekar relies upon Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. The State of Maharashtra [(1973)
4 SCC 79] to contend that mere fact that the appellant did not make any attempt
to run away or that he committed the crime in day light and did not try to hide
it or that motive to kill his wife was very weak, would not indicate that at
the time of commission of the act the appellant was suffering from unsoundness
of mind or he did not have requisite mens rea for the commission of the
offence. It is correct that these facts itself would not indicate insanity. In
the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but it is the
totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record to
prove that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The
unsoundness of mind before and after incident is a relevant fact. From the
circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably drawn that the
appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. He was under an attack of
the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not ruled
out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the
appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved the existence of
circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get
benefit of Section 84 IPC.
unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of
anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the crime,
the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of
unsoundness of mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.
Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.
parting, we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for the able
assistance rendered by Dr. Shyamla Pappu appearing as amicus curie for the
the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and
allow the appeal. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other case.