BAPU@ GAJRAJ SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 04-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAPU@ GAJRAJ SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN 
JUNE4, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
A 
B 
s.84-Exception to an offence for reason of unsound mind-Protection C 
of-Accused in a room closed from inside seen carrying blood stained sickle 
in one hand and chopped head of his wife in the other-Conviction uls 302 
recorded by trial court-Plea of protection u/s 84 rejected by trial court as 
.also by High Court-Held : Onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the 
accused-On facts, instant case is not one where protection uls 84 can be 
applied-Principles underlying the provision and test of responsibility in D 
cases of unsoundness of mind explained-Evidence Act, 1872-s. 105. 
Maxim-'Actus non reum facit nici men's sit rea'-Applicability of 
Appellant was prosecuted under s.302 IPC for killing his wife. The 
prosecution case was that PWl heard some persons shouting that accused E 
was beating his wife inside his house. On looking inside from the roof top 
he found that accused was carrying a bood stained sickle in one hand and the 
chopped head of his wife in the other. The blood was flowing on the floor from 
the body. Some other also witnessed this. The trial court convicted the 
accused of the charge. The plea that accused was of unsound mind and entitled 
to protection u/s 84 IPC was rejected by the trial court as also by the High 
Court in the appeal. 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the accused-appellant that · 
the police officials themselves wanted protection from the Court with regard 
F 
to violent behaviour of the accused; that the grandfather and the uncle of the G 
accused suffered from insanity and, therefore, the trial court and the High 
Court were not justified in refusing him protection u/s 84 IPC. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
917 
H 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test of responsibility in 
cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of "unsoundness 
of mind" in the IPC. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as 
equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" itself has no precise definition. 
It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every 
B person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal 
responsibility. (Para 7) (922-C) 
1.2. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical 
insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical 
insanity. The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which 
C arises by virtue of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is not so 
onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed 
the act with which he is charged. The burden on the accused is no higher 
than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding. 
[Para 7) (922-D-E) 
D 
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1964) SC 1563, relied on. 
1.3. Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for 
doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing 
the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he 
E is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. He is, however, not protected 
if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it 
was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary 
to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. (Para 8) [923-B-C) 
1.4. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e., 
F actus non reumfacit nisi mens sit rea" (an act does not constitute guilt unless 
done with a guilty intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and 
act must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened 
on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla voluntas est). The section 
itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the 
time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of 
G reason, form disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the 
act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or 
contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time 
for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the 
material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the 
releva

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.