JAI LAL versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 30-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAi LAL 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
April 30, 1968 
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 84--Scope of. 
From 1958 the appellant was a Railway employee and often lost his 
temper and had altercations with other clerks in the office. In October 
1960 he was found to be suffering from a mental illness as he exhibited 
>ymptoms of acute schizophrenia and showed disorder of thought, emo-
lion and perception of external realities. 
He was treated for and 
was 
cured of .:his illness by July 1961 when he resumed his duties. 
On the 
morning of November 25, he went to offiee as usual but as he was late 
in attendance. he was marked absent. He applied ii> writing for one 
day's casual leave and returned home. 
No one noticed any symptoms 
of any mental disorder at that time. 
Just af.ter 1 o"clock he entered his 
ncighbour's hou'e and stabbed and killed a girl H year old and later also 
stabbed and injured two other persons v.ith a knife. -He was thereafter 
arrested and interrogated on the satne day when ho gave normal and 
intelligent ansy,·crs. 
Aftcr his arn.-st and upon a medical examination. 
the appellant was declared to be lunatic though not violent and the psy-
chiatrist found that be bad had a relapse of schizophrenia. On September 
6, 1962, he wa.• reported a.• cured and was thereafter committed for trio! 
in February 1963. 
The trial court comicted him 
under ss. 
302 and 
32~ of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
During the trial and in the subsequent appeal :o the High Court, the 
defence pica was one of insanity which was concurrently rejected by both 
Courts. 
On appeal to this Court by special leave. 
HELD ; dismissing the appeal : 
The appellant wa.s not insane at the time of the killin~ and stabbing 
and knew the consequences of his 
acts. 
He must therefore be 
held 
criminally responsible for his acts. [ 144 in 
To establish that the acts done were not offences under s. 84 it must 
be proved clearly that at the time of the commission of the acts the appel-
lant. by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing that the 
acts were either morally \VTOng or contrary to la\\'. There was clear evi-
dence that on the morning of November 25 the appellant's mjnd was normal 
and also that he knew that his act of stabbing and killing was conlrary to 
law. 
He concealed the weapon of offence. 
He bolted the front door of 
his house to prevent arrest. 
He then tried to run away by the back door. 
When an a-acmpt \\'as made to apprehend him he :an back to his house and 
bloted the door. He then tried to disperse the cr""1d l>y throwing brickbats 
from the roof. 
His conduct immediately after t.e occurrence displayed 
consciousness of his guilt. [143 F; 144 D-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISD!CT!ON: C~inal Appeal No. 
38 of 1965. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
, 
JAI LAL v. DELHI ADMN. (Bachawat, J.) 
141 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dat~d 
July 28, 1964 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) 
m 
Criminal Appeal No. 40-D of 1963. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S. N. Prasad, for the appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J.-The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, 
con-
victed the appellant under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 
The Judge also 
convicted the appellant under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 
sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and 
directed that the two sentences would 
run concurrently. An 
appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab. The High Court 
dismissed the appeal. The appellant has filed this appeal after 
obtaining special leave. 
The appellant lives at Sat Nagar in Delhi. On November 25, 
1961 at 1.45 p.m. he entered the house of his neighbour Soma-
wati and stabbed her daughter Leela aged 1 t years with a knife. 
He inflicted five stab wounds, one on the back trunk, one on the 
right gluteal region, two on the right thigh and one on the chest. 
The injury on the back of trunk, proved fatal. 
Leela died in 
the hospital at 4 p.m. The appellant then returned to his house 
and bolted the front door. 
A crowd collected near the front 
door and raised an alarm. After some time the appellant went 
out by the back door and stabbed another neighbour Parbati and 
then Raghubir who tried to intervene on her behalf. 
The in-
juries were simple incised wounds 
Rabhubir and ot

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