LexRATANLAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 0 E F. G H RATANLAL v. STATE OF-MADHYA PRADESH December 17, 1970 [S. M. S!KRI, V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 251 In<fian Penal Code, s. 84-General exceptions-Plea of IMll!lty- Insanity must be proved to have existed at time of commission of o6ettee- Burden of proof is on accused-Burden ls not higher than that 011 fHU'lies te civil proceedings-Relatives of accused as defence witnesses-Ned nor be drsbelieved on that ground-They have opportunity 10 know accuset! Intimately-Failure of accused to produce expert evidence in c/efence- Adverse inference need not be drawn. The appellant set fire to grass lying Rear a khalyan. He was arrested next day. From February 23, 1965 when be was arrested to February 2, 1965, he was in police custody and thereafter sent to jail. The Assis- tant Surgeon, the Civil Surgeon, and the Psychiatrist of the mental hospital to which he was referred reported that he was depressed and silent. According to the Psychiatrist he was a lunatic in terms of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. At his trial under s. 435 of the Indian Penal Code two of bis relatives appeared as defence witnesses and testified that be was mentally unsound. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused o~ the finding that the appellant fell within the general exception in s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, in appeal filed by the State, re' versed the judgment. In appeal by special leave, HELD : It is now well-settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime was committed. The burden of proving this lies on the accused thou&h the burden is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civD pre- ceedings. [252 El State of Madya Pradesll v. Ahnradulla, [1961] 3 S.C.R. ~83 and D. C. Tllakker v. State of Guiarat, [1964) 7 S.C.R. 361, referred to. In the present case the appellant bad discharged the burden. There was no reason why the defence witnesses should not be believed. They were no doubt relations of the appellant but it is the relations who are likoly to remain in intimate contact. The behaviour of the appellant on the day of occurrence, failure of the police to lead evidence as to hi• condition when the aP.P"\lant was in custody, and the medical evidence indicated that the appellant was insane within the meaning of s. 114 l.P.C .. [256 DJ The High Court was wrong in drawing an adverse inference apinst the accused on the ground that he hact not produced any expert medical evidence in defence. This could not be expected from a poor villager specially in view of the certificates issued by the medical authoritiea after he was arrested. [255 CJ The High Court's observation that the appellant appeared to be ol normal understanding and the fact that he had given intelligcnt IUIS'Mn· to questions under s. 342 Cr.P.C., were irrelevant eonsideration5' in view · of the time that had elap8"d since the alleged commission of the offence .. ~256 B-CJ .252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R. CRIMINAL APJELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. A 135 of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 1, 1968 of the Madhya Praesh High·Court, Gwalior Bench ·in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1966. R. L. Kohli and/. C. Ta/war, for the appellant. B I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 'The Jud~ent of ithe (;oun was .delivered by . Sikri, J. This .appeal by special leave is directed against the .iudgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, allowing· the appeal of the State and convicting the appellant for having committed an offence punishable under s. 435, Indian C Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year. .The only point involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant was a person of unsound mind within s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of the incident. The Magistrate :held that he was not liable to punishment as he was insane at that time and did not know that he was doing anything wrong or D anything contrary to law. The High Court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant did not fall within the exception created by s. 84, l.P .C. It is now well-settled ti1at the crucial point of time at which unsoundr.~ss of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this lies on the accused. (See State of MadhY/fl Pra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.