SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 612 · Decided: 26-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 84: 
C 
Insanity-Benefit of-Entitlement to-Held, state of mind of the accused 
at the time of commission of offence to be inferred from the circumstances to 
prove insanity to claim benefit of the exception-Accused suffering from 
Psychiatric illness indulged in quarrel with his wife and hit her on her head 
resulting in her death-Under the circumstances, reasonable inference could 
be drawn that accused was under a delusion at the time of commission of 
D crime-Thus, he is entitled to the benefit of general exceptions under Section 
84-Evidence Act, 1872; Section I 05. 
Accused-appellant indulged in a quarrel with his wife, and hit her 
with a grinding stone, on her head. Consequently she died. Trial Court 
E found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced 
him to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction and 
sentence. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that accused was suffering from 
insanity at the time of killing his wife and thus entitled to benefit of general 
F exceptions under Section 84 IPC. On behalf of the State, it was contended 
that accused killed his wife during fit of extreme anger. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The· burden of proving the existence of circumstances 
G bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused 
under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act; the Court shall presume 
the absence of such circumstances. Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the 
accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to 
get the benefit of the exception. The unsoundness of mind preceding 
occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. Regarding the 
H 
612 
-
-
SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
' 6] 3 
state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence, A 
ordinarily that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances. 
Further, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher 
than that which rests upon a ·party to civil proceedings. 
1617-A; 618-F, G, H; 619-AJ 
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gzljarat, 11964) 7 SCR B 
361, relied on. 
2. In the instant case, it is the totality of the circumstances seen in 
the light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant was suffering 
from paranoid schizophrenia. It has been proved that there was a family C 
history of psychiatric illness. The accused-appellant and his father were 
suffering from the ailment. From the circumstances of the case clearly an 
inference could reasonably be drawn that the appellant was under a 
delusion at the time of commission of offence. He was under an attack of 
the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not 
ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of D 
burden on the appellant, the appellant has proved the existence of 
circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get 
benefit of Section 84 IPC. Thus, the crime was not committed as a result 
of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of 
commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the E 
nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus he is entitled 
to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the 
appellant cannot be sustained. 1619-E-H; 620-AI 
Modi 's Medical Jurisprudence, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
180 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1998 of the Bombay High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 189/95. 
Dr. Shyamla Pappu, (AC), Shakeel Ahmed (AC) and R. Krishnamoorthi, 
for the Appellant. 
Arun, Naresh Kumar and V.N. Raghupathy, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Insanity of the appellant, at the time of 
commission of the offence, is the main plea that has been urged before us for 
reversing the conviction and sentence in question. 
The appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of the offence 
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (!PC) and sentenced to undergo 
B rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against conviction and sentence 
having been dismissed by the High Court, this appeal has been filed on grant 
of lea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.