LexT.N. LAKSHMAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
T.N. LAKSHMAIAH
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
OCTOBER 16? 2001
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI? JJ.]
Penal Code, J 860 :
Section 84-Plea o.f insanity_;.General exceptions-Scope of-Held, when
aet committed by a person of unsound mind incapable of knowing the nature .
of the act entire conduct of accused, from committing of offence till commence-
ment of Session Court's proceedings is relevant to ascertain whether plea raised
was genuine, bonafide or after thought-The plea raised in the instant case is
an qfter thought and bereft of any substance.
D
Maxims:
Maxim 'Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea ', meaning and applicabil-
ity o.f.
The appellant was a Government servant living with his wife and
E
son. He took them to a picnic spot . He allegedly pushed down his son, who
fell on a rock which was 150 ft. below. Thereafter he tied the saree of his
wife around her neck, tightened the knot and killed her. After committing
the crime, he came back and on the next day confessed to the Police. The
police registered a case u/s. 302 IPC and started investigation. As per his
F
disclosure, the dead body of his wife and ~he body of his son who was alive
were recovered. His son was hospitalised, who later-on succumbed to his
injuries.
G
On completion of investigation the final report was submitted and
the case was committed to the Session. Charges were framed against the
appellant; thirty witnesses were examined. However, there was no eye
witness to the crime. The appellant denied the charge of taking his wife
and son to the place of occurrence. He stated that he could only remember
that his wife had nagged him to eat meals on 13.1.91 and subsequently he
found himself in the prison in June 1991 and he did not remember any-
H
thing in the intervening period. The Trial Court concluded that the appel-
200
...
T.N. LAKSHMAIAH v. STATE
201
lant was guilty of murder of his wife and son. The appeal was dismissed by
A
the High Court Hence this appeal.
It was contended for the appellant that his conduct at or about the
time of occurrence, was of mental illness and the report produced during
the trial probablised his being insane within the meaning of Section 84 IPC
B
which entitled his acquittal; and that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case as the prosecution rests only on the circumstantial evidence and the
chain of circumstances was not so complete as to draw the only inference
that the accused was guilty.
To ascertain the mental condition of the appellant, this Court consid-
ered the medical report of the appellant. The report revealed that he was
suffering from moderate depression; however his mental condition was
stated to be satisfactory.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 84 IPC provides that nothing is an offence which
c
D
is done by a person who at the time of doing it, 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. The Section is part of Chapter IV of IPC
E
and deals with general exceptions. The principle embodied in the Chapter
is based upon the maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" i.e. an act is
not criminal unless there is criminal intent Under the Evidence Act, the
onus of proving any of the exceptions in Chapter IV IPC lies on the
accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected·
F
from the prosecution. It is sufficient if the version given by him casts a
doubt on the prosecution case. [204-G; 205-D; E]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, Am (1961) SC 998, referred
to.
2. For claiming the exception under section 84 of Penal Code, entire
conduct of the accused from the time of commission of offence up to the
time the Sessions proceeding commenced, is relevant for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bonafide or after
G
thought. [205-H; 206-A]
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Sahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR .(1964) s'c
B
c
1563 and Bhikari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1966) SC 1, referred to.
3. There is nothing on record to infer that the accused was of un-
sound mind at or about the time of occurrence and at no point of time his
behaviour was shown to be abnormal. LikeWise there was no recorc{show-
ing the appellant to be suffering from any mental disease. The plea raised
on the face of it is an after thought and bereExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.