Date of the Judgment: 2 July 2018
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2017
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Navin Sinha, J.
Can a person be convicted of a crime if they were of unsound mind at the time of the act? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted for murder and assault. The court examined whether the accused’s mental state at the time of the offense met the legal criteria for exemption from criminal liability. This judgment highlights the importance of considering mental health in criminal proceedings and the burden of proof in such cases. The bench was composed of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Navin Sinha.
Case Background
On the morning of 26 September 2006, the appellant, Devidas Loka Rathod, suddenly attacked several people with a sickle. He first injured Santosh Jadhav (P.W.5) on the jaw, cheek, and shoulder. Later that same day, he assaulted Ulhas Rathor (P.W.3) on his back and neck. When Harish Chandra Chauhan intervened, the appellant rained blows on his back and stomach, resulting in Chauhan’s death. The appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended by villagers and handed over to the police.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26 September 2006 | Appellant assaulted Santosh Jadhav, Ulhas Rathor and Harish Chandra Chauhan. Harish Chandra Chauhan died. |
| 26 September 2006 | Appellant apprehended by villagers and handed over to police. FIR registered. |
| 28 September 2006 | Appellant taken into custody after being hospitalized. |
| 29 December 2006 | Charge-sheet was submitted. |
| 16 February 2007 | Commitment of the case done. |
| 09 January 2007 to 07 April 2007 | Appellant had several medical visits in prison, even weekly, 12 in number. |
| 03 May 2007 | Application moved on behalf of the appellant under Chapter-XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was not fit to face trial. |
| 14 June 2007 | Fresh medical report was called for. |
| 19 June 2007 | Medical report opined that the appellant was a chronic patient of psychotics. |
| 13 July 2007 | Trial Court directed him to be sent to the Mental Hospital and called for a fresh report. |
| 11 April 2008 | Fresh report was called for and the appellant was prescribed Trinicalm Forte tablet/Trinicalm Plus tablet amongst other medicines. |
| 20 May 2009 | Treating Doctor, Dr. Pramod Thakare, opined in writing on the mental illness of the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, rejected the appellant’s defense of unsoundness of mind, citing insufficient evidence. The judge relied on the testimony of Dr. Sagar Srikant Chiddalwar (C.W.1), who stated the appellant was mentally fit to face trial. The trial court also considered the appellant’s behavior in custody and during the trial, concluding that he was aware of his actions. The High Court upheld the conviction.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section provides an exception to criminal liability for acts done by a person of unsound mind. It states:
“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.” - Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section addresses the burden of proof when an accused claims an exception. It states:
“When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”
The court emphasized that while the law presumes every person to be sane, this presumption can be rebutted if the accused presents evidence showing unsoundness of mind at the time of the offense.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant’s counsel argued that in the absence of mens rea (guilty mind), the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was unsustainable. They relied on the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, 1964 (7) SCR 361.
- It was contended that the evidence of Mankarna Chavan (D.W.1) and Gograbai Rathod (D.W.2), regarding the appellant’s unsoundness of mind, was not properly appreciated.
- The appellant’s family was poor and could not be expected to maintain detailed medical records. The defense witnesses testified that the appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Kelkar at Akola.
- The defense argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish a plausible defense for unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the IPC, read with Section 105 of the Evidence Act, on a preponderance of probability.
- The prosecution failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal, for which reliance was placed on Elavarasan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 (7) SCC 110.
State’s Arguments:
- The State’s counsel argued that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case for unsoundness of mind on probability.
- The trial judge had taken adequate precautions by calling for medical reports and was satisfied with the appellant’s ability to defend himself, also noting his demeanor in court.
- The appellant’s conduct in making repeated assaults, running away from the scene, and throwing the sickle, were sufficient to establish the commission of the offense knowingly, which was incompatible with the defense of unsoundness of mind.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Mens Rea | Absence of guilty mind makes conviction under Section 302 unsustainable | Appellant |
| Relied on Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, 1964 (7) SCR 361 | Appellant | |
| The appellant’s unsoundness of mind was not properly appreciated | Appellant | |
| Evidence of Unsoundness of Mind | Testimony of Mankarna Chavan (D.W.1) and Gograbai Rathod (D.W.2) was not properly appreciated | Appellant |
| Appellant’s family was poor and could not maintain detailed medical records | Appellant | |
| Appellant was under treatment of Dr. Kelkar at Akola | Appellant | |
| Burden of Proof | Sufficient evidence for a plausible defense under Section 84 of IPC and Section 105 of the Evidence Act | Appellant |
| Prosecution failed to lead evidence in rebuttal, relying on Elavarasan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 (7) SCC 110 | Appellant | |
| No Unsoundness of Mind | Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for unsoundness of mind | State |
| Trial judge took adequate precautions and was satisfied with appellant’s ability to defend himself | State | |
| Appellant’s conduct was incompatible with the defense of unsoundness of mind | State |
Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in emphasizing the lack of meticulous medical records due to poverty and the prosecution’s failure to rebut the defense’s claims, highlighting a gap in the legal process for marginalized individuals.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offense, and therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code?
The Court also examined a sub-issue, whether the lower courts properly appreciated the medical and defense evidence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offense? | Yes, the appellant was of unsound mind. | The court found that the appellant presented sufficient evidence to create doubt about his mental state at the time of the offense, supported by medical records and the prosecution’s failure to address the appellant’s hospitalization immediately after the incident. |
| Whether the lower courts properly appreciated the medical and defense evidence? | No, the lower courts did not properly appreciate the evidence. | The court found that the lower courts failed to consider the medical evidence and the lack of rebuttal by the prosecution, leading to a miscarriage of justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, 1964 (7) SCR 361 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of proof in cases of insanity | The court reiterated the principles laid down in this case regarding the burden of proof in cases of insanity. The prosecution must prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and while there is a rebuttable presumption of sanity, the accused only needs to establish their defense on a preponderance of probability. |
| Elavarasan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 (7) SCC 110 | Supreme Court of India | Prosecution’s duty to rebut defense evidence | The court noted that the prosecution failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal of the defense’s claim of unsoundness of mind. |
| Deepak Kumar vs. Ravi Virmani and another, 2002 (2) SCC 737 | Supreme Court of India | Reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact | The court acknowledged its general reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts but noted that it can reappraise evidence in the interest of justice. |
| Bapu vs. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66 | Supreme Court of India | Duty of investigator in cases of insanity | The court emphasized the duty of an investigator to subject an accused with a history of insanity to a medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the court. |
| Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495 | Supreme Court of India | Standard of proof for defense of insanity | The court stated that the accused has to establish the defense of insanity on a preponderance of probability, after which the onus shifts to the prosecution. |
| State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Test of legal insanity | The court clarified that the standard of test to be applied is that of legal insanity and not medical insanity. |
| Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 533 | Supreme Court of India | Crucial time for considering unsoundness of mind | The court reiterated that the crucial point of time for considering the defense of unsoundness of mind is when the crime is committed, based on the evidence of conduct before, during, and after the crime. |
| Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 | Supreme Court of India | Benefit of reasonable doubt | The court stated that if a reasonable doubt is created about the mental condition of the accused at the time of the offense, they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. |
| State of Rajasthan vs. Ani alias Hanif and others, (1997) 6 SCC 162 | Supreme Court of India | Duty of the Trial Judge | The court emphasized the duty of a trial judge to actively participate in the trial to elicit necessary materials from witnesses and minimize errors. |
| Rama and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 571 | Supreme Court of India | Duty of the Appellate Court | The court stated that an appellate court has the duty to reappraise the evidence itself, and cannot dispose of the appeal based solely on the appraisal of evidence by the trial court. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s lack of mens rea | The court agreed that the lack of mens rea due to unsoundness of mind was a valid defense. |
| Evidence of unsoundness of mind | The court found the evidence presented by the defense, coupled with the medical records, created a reasonable doubt about the appellant’s mental state. |
| Prosecution’s failure to rebut | The court noted the prosecution’s failure to rebut the defense’s claims and the lack of explanation for the appellant’s hospitalization immediately after the incident. |
| State’s argument that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case | The court found that the appellant had indeed created sufficient doubt about his mental state. |
| State’s argument that the trial judge took adequate precautions | The court disagreed, stating that the trial judge failed to properly consider all evidence, especially the medical reports and the circumstances of the appellant’s hospitalization. |
| State’s argument that the appellant’s conduct was incompatible with the defense of unsoundness of mind | The court found that the appellant’s conduct was not sufficient to negate the evidence of his mental illness, especially given his subsequent treatment with antipsychotic drugs. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court relied on Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat [1964 (7) SCR 361]* to reiterate the principles of burden of proof in cases of insanity, emphasizing that while there is a rebuttable presumption of sanity, the accused only needs to establish their defense on a preponderance of probability.
- The court used Elavarasan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police [2011 (7) SCC 110]* to highlight the prosecution’s failure to rebut the defense’s claim of unsoundness of mind.
- The court referred to Deepak Kumar vs. Ravi Virmani and another [2002 (2) SCC 737]* to acknowledge its reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact but noted that it can reappraise evidence in the interest of justice.
- The court cited Bapu vs. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 8 SCC 66]* to emphasize the duty of an investigator to subject an accused with a history of insanity to a medical examination immediately.
- The court used Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand [(2011) 11 SCC 495]* to state that the accused has to establish the defense of insanity on a preponderance of probability, after which the onus shifts to the prosecution.
- The court cited State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram [(2012) 1 SCC 602]* to clarify that the standard of test to be applied is that of legal insanity and not medical insanity.
- The court relied on Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1970) 3 SCC 533]* to reiterate that the crucial point of time for considering the defense of unsoundness of mind is when the crime is committed.
- The court referred to Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190]* to state that if a reasonable doubt is created about the mental condition of the accused at the time of the offense, they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
- The court used State of Rajasthan vs. Ani alias Hanif and others [(1997) 6 SCC 162]* to emphasize the duty of a trial judge to actively participate in the trial to elicit necessary materials from witnesses and minimize errors.
- The court cited Rama and others vs. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 4 SCC 571]* to state that an appellate court has the duty to reappraise the evidence itself.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:
- Medical Evidence: The court placed significant weight on the medical records showing that the appellant was treated with antipsychotic drugs shortly after the incident and during his time in custody. The court noted the use of the word “continuation” in the medical reports, indicating a pre-existing condition.
- Prosecution’s Failure: The court criticized the prosecution for not providing evidence about the appellant’s hospitalization immediately after the assault and for failing to rebut the defense’s claims of unsoundness of mind.
- Trial Court’s Error: The court found that the trial court erred in relying on the appellant’s demeanor in court and not considering the medical evidence and the circumstances of his hospitalization.
- Appellate Court’s Oversight: The court noted that the appellate court also failed to delve into the records and reappraise the evidence.
- Benefit of Doubt: The court concluded that the appellant had successfully created a reasonable doubt about his mental state at the time of the offense, thus entitling him to the benefit of the doubt.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Medical Evidence of Appellant’s Treatment | 35% |
| Prosecution’s Failure to Provide Evidence | 30% |
| Trial Court’s Error in Evidence Appreciation | 20% |
| Appellate Court’s Oversight | 10% |
| Benefit of Doubt | 5% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The analysis reveals that legal considerations (60%) played a more significant role than factual aspects (40%) in the court’s decision. The court heavily relied on the legal principles surrounding the defense of insanity and the burden of proof, while also considering the factual evidence of the appellant’s medical condition and the prosecution’s shortcomings.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof in such cases is not as stringent on the accused as it is on the prosecution. The accused only needs to establish their defense on a preponderance of probability, after which the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove the inapplicability of the exception. The court also noted that the standard of test to be applied is that of legal insanity and not medical insanity.
The court stated, “The crucial point of time for considering the defence plea of unsoundness of mind has to be with regard to the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed collated from evidence of conduct which preceded, attended and followed the crime…”
The court also observed, “If from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal…”
The court further stated, “Merely because an injured witness, who may legitimately be classified as an interested witness for obvious reasons, may have stated that the appellant was not of unsound mind, cannot absolve the primary duty of the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt explaining why the plea for unsoundness of mind taken by the accused was untenable.”
The court highlighted the significance of the medical evidence, particularly the prescription of antipsychotic drugs, and the fact that the appellant was hospitalized immediately after the incident. The court noted that the trial court had failed to consider this evidence and had instead relied on the appellant’s demeanor in court, which was not a reliable indicator of his mental state at the time of the offense. The court also criticized the appellate court for not properly reappraising the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- The burden of proof in cases of insanity is not as stringent on the accused as on the prosecution. The accused only needs to establish their defense on a preponderance of probability.
- The crucial time for considering the defense of unsoundness of mind is the time when the offense was committed.
- Medical evidence plays a critical role in determining the mental state of the accused.
- The prosecution must thoroughly investigate and present all relevant evidence, including medical records and circumstances of hospitalization.
- Trial and appellate courts have a duty to properly consider all evidence and not rely solely on the accused’s demeanor in court.
This judgment reinforces the importance of considering mental health in criminal proceedings and the need for a fair and thorough evaluation of evidence related to the accused’s mental state. It also highlights the significance of the prosecution’s duty to rebut the defense’s claims and the trial court’s role in ensuring a fair trial.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, Akola, for further action under Section 335 or 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to ensure the appellant receives proper care and support, as per his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that if an accused presents sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt about their mental state at the time of the offense, they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. This case reinforces the importance of medical evidence and the prosecution’s duty to rebut claims of unsoundness of mind. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it emphasizes the practical application of the existing legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitting Devidas Loka Rathod of the charges under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the appellant had successfully created a reasonable doubt about his mental state at the time of the offense, entitling him to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment underscores the importance of considering mental health in criminal proceedings and ensures that individuals who may not be fully responsible for their actions due to mental illness are not unjustly convicted.