LexHARI SINGH GOND versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 949 HARi SINGH GOND A v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2007) AUGUST 29, 2008 B .-,...J [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 84 and 302 - Accused in a murder trial claiming c protection uls 84 - HELD: Burden of proof rests on accused to prove his insanity and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove the charge - Crucial point of time for deciding whether benefit of s. 84 should be given or not is the material time when the offence took place - Where during the D investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the ... duty of the investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused E - On facts, trial court and High Court rightly held s. 84 not applicable - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 IPC, on the -~' allegations that in the night between 25th and 25th F February, 1995, the father and father-in-law of PW-1 and the accused, who was the son-in-law of PW-1, were sleeping in one room in the house of PW-1; at around 3- 3.30 A.M. PW-1 heard shouts of the accused who was pushing his door; the accused then ran towards him and G _,. beat him with a stick; PW-1 ran out of the house and -'I noticing that the house had caught fire, he brought some villagers who caught hold of the accused; they saw father- in-law of PW-1 lying dead in the room with his body 949 H '. 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. ,. A burning; the father of PW~1 toid that the accused kicked and slapped him and hit the deceased with stick several times causing his death and then put some grains on fire as a result of which the house caught fire and the deceased was also burnt. The postmortem report B indicated that the whole body of the deceased had. burnt and all the injuries thereon were ante mortem. The trial \..--:. court convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC and held that s.84 IPC was not applicable. The High Court affirmed the i conviction. c In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended for the appellant that the trial court and the High Court were not justified in rejecting the plea of protection u/s 84 IPC. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test of responsibility in cas~s of alle.ged unsoundness of mind. ~ There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the :IPC. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression E as equivalent to insanity. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A Court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords F no protection under Section 84. The standard to be applied ' is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted A. by reasonable men .• the act was right or wrong. [Paras 5,9 ~ and 10] [954,E; 954,F; 957,G; 958,D] J M Naughton's case (1843) 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847...;. referred to. \ \ G , 1.2 By virtue of s. 105 of the Evidence Act, 1972, the ~ ' ~ burden of proof rests on the accused to prove his insanity, ~ and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to ) prove the charge. The burden on the accused is no higher 1,- than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil r HARi SINGH GOND v. STATE OF M.P. 951 proceeding. In dealing with cases involving a defence of A insanity, distinction must be made between cases in which insanity is more or less proved and the question is only as to the degree of irresponsibility, and cases in which insanity is sought to be proved in respect of .a person who for all intents and purposes appears san,. s [para 5] [954,G-H; 955,A-B] . Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat 1964 (7) SCR 361 =AIR 1964 SC 1563 - relied on. 1 ;3 Where during the investigation previous history c of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of the investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and If this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The 0 ·onus, however, has to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.