PRAKASH NAYI @ SEN versus STATE OF GOA

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 12-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
823
PRAKASH NAYI @ SEN
v.
STATE OF GOA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2010 of 2010)
JANUARY 12, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and s.84 – Plea of Insanity –
“Schizophrenia” – Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced
u/s. 302 IPC for having caused the death of the victim-deceased by
attacking him at a store in which the deceased was working, with
an iron locking plate without any provocation and premeditation –
In the course of trial, the defence pleaded insanity – At one of the
hospitals where the accused was undergoing the treatment before
the date of incident, it was recorded that the accused was suffering
from anxiety neurosis with reactive depression and has symptoms of
acid peptic disease and mild hypertension and the treatment was
akin to one meant for schizophrenia – Two doctors were examined
before the Sessions Court wherein they deposed positively pointing
towards schizophrenia – On trial, the Trial Court convicted the
accused of the said offence, and the Conviction was upheld by the
High Court – Aggrieved by the decision, the accused approached
Supreme Court – Held: The courts below erred in not accepting the
reports of the doctors, more so when one of them withstood cross-
examination and hence the conviction could not be said to be well
founded – Further, the mere fact that the accused subsequently
became fit to face the trial is sufficient enough to render an order
of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity – Also that both
the Trial Court and the High Court were influenced by the nature of
the act while ignoring the condition of the appellant and the fact
that the burden on the accused is one of preponderance of
probability.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84 – Plea of Insanity – S.84 of the
Code recognized only the ‘acts’ which could not be termed as an
offence – For the said section to apply such an act must emanate
from an unsound mind – Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua
non to the applicability of the provision – A mere medical insanity
cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind – There may be a case
where a person suffering from medical insanity would have
committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract
the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC – There must be an
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 823
823
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to
understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law.
Maxims – Actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea – Unsound
mind – A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing
the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right
or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act –
When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment.
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 8, 105 – Section 105 of the Indian
Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions
– Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person
accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the
case u/s. 84 of the IPC, one has to apply the concept of
preponderance of probabilities – The aforesaid provision has to be
read along with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XXV – ss. 329-
339 – Object and Purpose – The idea under the provisions to
facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because
of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is
having a disability – The role of the Court is to find the remedial
measures and do complete justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 84 of the IPC recognizes only an act
which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words
“nothing is an offence”. The said words are a clear indication of
the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall
emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of an
unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the
provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it
should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such
a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act.
Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act
committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state,
the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall
be present at the time of commission. [Para 4][828-A-C]
2. The provision speaks about the act of a person

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