LexSURENDERA MISHRA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 133 SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND (Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2006) JANUARY 6, 2011 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] A B i Penal Code, 1860: s. 84 - Applicability of - An act will · not be an offence, if done by a person who, at the time of doing C · the same by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of ; knowing the nature of the act - Burden to prove unsoundness 1 of mind uls. 105 of Evidence Act is on the accused - In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and D following the crime - Even if the accused estabJishes unsoundness of mind, s. 84 will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law - In the instant case, the case of the accused did not come within the exception E contemplated u/.c:;. 84 - The prosecution had proved that immediately after the accused shot dead the deceased, he threatened his driver of dire consequences - Not only that, he ran away from the place of occurrence and threw the weapon of crime in the well in order to conceal himself from F the crime - The said conduct of the accused subsequent to . the commission of the offence clearly suggest that he knew · that whatever he had done was wrong and illegal - Moreover, · the fact that the accused was running a medical shop showed that he was mentally fit for same - The accused though G suffered from certain mental instability even before and after the incident but from that one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of probabilities that he at the time of the commission of the offence did not know the nature of his act H 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A that it was either wrong or contrary to law - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105. Words and phrases: Expression 'unsoundness of mind' - Meaning (ff. B The prosecution caee was that on 11.8.2000, the deceaaed was going In a car driven by PW-1. He stopped the car near a shop and called PW·2. While the deceased was talking to PW·2, the accused-appellant came there ,.., with a pistol and pushed PW·2 and fired at point blank "' range at the deceased. The ~c_cy!led threatened the driver who then "fled-away from the place of occurrence and Informed the famlly members of the deceased about the Incident. Thereafter, the deceased was rushed to hospital where he was declared dead. During trial, the only plea D of appellant was that by virtue of unsoundness of mind, J., the act done by him would come within general exception under Section 84, IPC and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the act done by him. The trial court did not accept the said plea and convicted the E appellant under Section 302 and Section 27 of Arms Act. The High Court upheld the conviction. The Instant appeal was filed challenglng the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court t F HELD: 1.1. A plaln reading of Section 84, IPC shows that an act wlll not be an offence, If done by a person who, at the time of doing the same by reason of unsoundness of mind, Is Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. An G accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an ac:t under Section 84, IPC Is to prove legal Insanity and not medical Insanity. Expression "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined In the IPC and It has mainly been H 134 SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 135 , treated as equivalent to Insanity. But the term Insanity A carries different meaning In different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering frQm mental disease Is not Ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that ' the accused is .conc·eited, odd, irascible and his brain is B < : 1 not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments ~ from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak : and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal c behaviour or the behaviour is queer are not sufficient to attraf':t the application of Section 84, IPC. [Paras 7, 9) [141· : C-D; 142-D-G] ~ Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 i SCC 66. Hari Singh Gond v. Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.