SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 13-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 320 
(-
A 
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV 
f'~
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1602 of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 13, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
~~ 1 
Penal Code, 1860: 
~
c 
ss. 84 and 302 - Murder - Plea of insanity by the ac-
cused - Psychiatrists attending upon the accused were of the 
opinion that accused was not mentally ill at the relevant time 
- Conviction by courts below- On appeal, held: In the facts of 
the case, accused not entitled to benefit of s. 84 - Conviction 
D justified - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105. 
s. 84 - Applicability of - Discussed. 
' ;,..... 
~ 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105 - Burden of proof- To prove 
) 
insanity by the accused - Held: Burden of proof rests on an 
E accused to prove his insanity. 
, 
r 
Words and Phrases -
'Insanity' and 'unsoundness of 
mind' - Meaning of in the context of s. 84 /PC. 
,... 
1..-
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having 
F caused death of one person. The prosecution cas~ was 
'! 
that the accused who was a prisoner was admitted for \ 
treatment with the complaint that he was murmuring to 
himself, like a lunatic. He was lodged in the ward where 
another prisoner (deceased) was already lodged for treat-
G ment. PWs. 2 and 4 alongwith three others were the guards 
on duty. At the alleged time of occurrence, when there was 
no electric supply, on the call of one of the guards that 
)..._, 
/o 
noise was heard from the prisoners' ward, all the guards 
went in the ward. PW2 was grabbed by the appellant. How-
H 
320 
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 
321 
MAHARASHTRA 
) 
ever, he was controlled by guard party. When the electric-
A 
ity resumed, it was noticed that the deceased was hang-
ing from the bed, and the person caught by the guard 
party was the appellant-accused. 
During trial, the accused took defence of his mental 
illness. PWs 9 and 10, the Psychiatrists who attended 8 
• _ · upon the accused stated that the accused was not men-
tally ill at the relevant time. Trial court discarding the de-
fence u/s. 84 IPC, convicted the accused u/s. 302 !PC.The 
High Court confirmed the order of trial court. There-against 
the appeal was filed before Supreme Court. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The evidence of PWs 9 and 10, the two psy-
chiatrists who attended upon the accused-appellant and the 
opinion expressed by them that the accused was not men-
D 
tally ill at the relevant time, clearly goes to show that the 
appellant's plea relating to unsoundness of mind has no 
substance. Accordingly, the trial Court and the High Court 
have rightly held that Section 84 IPC has no application to 
the facts of the case. [Paras 14 and 17] [332-E 333-8] 
E 
2.1 Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated 
from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsound-
ness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either 
t\ 
incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that 
--r. he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. [Para 
F 
8] [329-8] 
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 - re-
lied on. 
2.2 In dealing with cases involving a defence of in-
G 
-
;'-
sanity, 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 in-
sanity is sought to be proved in respect of a person, who 
for all intents and purposes, appears sane. In all cases, H 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
where previous insanity is proved or admitted, certain con- r ;;..
siderations have to be borne in mind. [Para 7] [328-E-F] 
2.3 Section 84 itself provides that the benefit is avail-
able only after it is proved that at the time of committing 
B 
the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect 
of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the 
nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if \- . 
he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law, 
then this Section must be applied. The crucial point of 
time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should 
c be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes 
place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circum-
stances are to be taken into consideration, it would be 
dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments 
derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only 
D unsoundness of mind, which naturally impairs the cogni-
tive faculties of the mind that c

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