Sudhir Ch. Biswas v.

State

Court: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 1987 CriLJ 863

Case No.:

Bench: Justice S. Chakrabarty, Justice G. C. Chatterjee

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs. Moitra

PROVISIONS OF IPC INVOLVED

Section 84: Act of a person of unsound mind.- Nothing is an offence which 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 that he is doing what he is doing is either wrong or contrary
to law.

Section 302: Punishment for murder.- Whoever commits a murder shall be punished with
death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- Whoever, except in
the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for
shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely
to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any
corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance
which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood,
or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

EXPLAIN

The Defence of Insanity is one of the General Exceptions to criminal liability recognized by
the IPC. The defence is based on the principle of mens rea. By virtue of the maxim actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea, an act forbidden by penal is not punishable if it unaccompanied
by a guilty mind. The justification for providing unsoundness of mind as a complete defence
is that an insane person is incapable of forming criminal intent.
Essential Ingredients of Section 84:

In order to seek protection of section 84, IPC, it is necessary for an accused to prove that:

1. At the time of commission of the act he was of unsound; and,

2. Due to the unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that the act was contrary to law or that the act was wrong.

The crucial point of time of such incapability due to unsoundness of mind is the time when he
committed the offence. The insanity prior or subsequent to the commission of the offence is
not in itself adequate to absolve him from the criminal liability.

It has been held in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964
SC 1563, that the insanity, for the purpose of section 84, should be of such a nature that it
completely impairs the cognitive faculty of the mind to such an extent that he is incapable of
knowing the nature of his act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 24-12-1980, at around 4:30 p.m. Smt. Gauridasi (P.W. 10), the mother-in-law of the
accused Sudhir, was coming to her own village Birnagar via Berkamgachi being
accompanied by her daughter Kalidasi Biswas and her son-in-law Sudhir himself.
While they were passing through the way near Berkamgachi Deep Tube Well, the accused
Sudhir began to assault Gauridasi, his mother-in-law, and gave her several strokes.
Kalidasi her daughter tried to intervene but in doing so she too was severely dealt with by the
dagger so much so that she fell down on the ground.
A little girl Rekharani Kirtaniya (P.W. 3) was standing aside. She raised hue and cry and
hearing her cries neighbouring people flocked to the place. The incident was thus witnessed
by several local people. Rekharani's father Nimai Kirtaniya (P.W. 4) was one of them.
P.W. 5 Nimai Mondal, P.W. 7 Sachin Mondal and P.W. 1 Budheshwar Biswas ran to the spot
due to the hue and cry and the two injured women lying over there as also the accused person
with his blood stained wearing apparels.
P.W. 2 Santosh Modak another resident of Berkamgachi was sitting then within a local shop.
Hearing cries he rushed to the spot. He saw Sudhir stabbing his wife.
Nimai Kirtaniya (P.W. 4) caught the accused and tied him to a pole in order to stop him from
running away.
P.W. 1 Budheswar Biswas who was a local man picked up the injured Kalidasi wife of Sudhir
and took her to Ranaghat hospital where however the lady breathed her last soon after.
The mother-in-law was also taken to that hospital. Both the injured were examined by the
M.O. P.W. 11 Dr. K. P. Biswas. The mother-in-law however survived.
Four hours after the incident one Kalipada Pal a local resident ran up to the police station
Ranaghat and gave a written ejahar adumbrating all necessary details connected with the
incident. The written complaint was subsequently treated as F.I.R.
The accused was taken in police custody.
Thereafter in due course Sudhir was committed to the Court of Session.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadia, accused Sudhir faced the trial. At the trial
two distinct charges were framed as against Sudhir, one Under Section 302,1.P.C. for
murdering his wife and another Under Section 324, I.P.C. for causing hurt to Gauridasi with a
sharp cutting weapon namely the dagger.
Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, P.W. 10 Gauridasi revealed the whole incident in
detail. She deposed as to how and by what weapon and when she was assaulted by her own
son-in-law.
The court was convinced by the statements of the witnesses that all these natural and
probable witnesses were absolutely disinterested and that there was nothing to disbelieve
them when they said that they had seen the accused, the dagger and the two injured women
over there.
In view of these abundant materials on the record regarding the guilt of the accused, learned
trial Court came to the only reasonable conclusion that the accused was guilty of both the
offences of murdering his wife as also of assaulting his mother-in-law in the way as alleged
by the prosecution. Therefore, Sudhir was convicted for the two offences, one under Section
302, I.P.C. for murdering his wife (Kalidasi) with a dagger and another under Section 324,
I.P.C. for causing hurt to his mother-in-law with the same dagger and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the first offence and to rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the second offence.

An appeal was filed in before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court challenging the conviction by
the Sessions Court.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the defence of insanity under Section 84 of I.P.C. will be provided to the accused in
this case?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Jaiswal, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the
evidence of the child witness who disclosed before the Court in her cross-examination that
"the accused used to beg in our mohalla and it sqems to me that he was, an abnormal type of
man".
He also pointed out and highlighted the statement made by Nimai P.W. 5 who gave out in his
cross-examination that "I saw this accused to beg in our house and also saw this man to roam
in our village in mad condition".
He also drew the attention of the Court to the order sheet dt. 2-3-81 of the trial Court's record
of the S.D.J.M., Ranaghat, to show that the S.D.J.M. concerned could at least for a day mark
some abnormality regarding the behaviour of Sudhir while he was in judicial custody
It has been argued that the quoted evidence has cast a reasonable doubt in our mind as
regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused and
that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not thus discharged and
therefore, the exception of insanity under Section 84 of I.P.C. must be provided to the
accused.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Mrs. Moitra appearing for the State, respondent, has rightly argued by saying that it was a
case of cool and calculated murder so much so that Sudhir was carrying with him a dagger.
It was contended that the accused was perfectly sane at the time of occurrence and that he
committed the crime in the usual way not being pressurized by any unsoundness or
abnormality of his mind.
The counsel put to light the fact that under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as many as 30 questions were
put to Sudhir. Sudhir answered all of them satisfactorily. His answer to the last question was
"on the day of incident I went to perform my work. On returning home from my work 1
found that my wife was lying on the ground being murdered, I did not murder her." The
accused cannot be believed as he was evidently speaking lies.
Therefore, it was contended by the respondents that the accused was not suffering from
unsoundness of mind during the course of committing the crime and hence he shall be made
liable for the crime.
JUDGMENT
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentenced by the Trial
Court as it found no ground to set aside the judgment.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The appellants tried to take the defence of insanity under section 84 by stating the statements
of witnesses which stated that accused was seen an “abnormal type of man” or that he roamed
around the village in a “mad state”. However, this is not enough to prove that the accused
was suffering from unsoundness of mind.
Insanity to be recognised as an exception to criminal liability must be such as to disable an
accused person from knowing the nature of the act, when he committed the criminal act. If at
the time of committing the offence the accused knew the nature of the act, he is guilty.
Unsoundness of mind means and implies a state of mind in which an accused is incapable of
knowing that he is doing any wrong or anything contrary to law. And the burden of proving
this is upon the person who takes the plea.
The Calcutte High Court while giving the present judgment referred to the case of Keshaorao
v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri LJ 403 (Bom), wherein it was held that mere concentricity
or strange behaviour of the accused is not enough to constitute his unsoundness of mind.
Therefore, the decision given by the court was apt.

Bombay High Court

Bhatu S/O Himmat Akhade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2020

Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, B. U. Debadwar

Facts: The accused and the deceased were married for five years. The accused was addicted
to vices viz, drinking and gambling. He used to ill-treat and beat his wife since the beginning
of their marriage. On the day of the incident, the accused got in a quarrel with the deceased
and committed assault on person of the victim by pestle and blade on her neck and other vital
organs. The injuries caused due to this assault were so serious that she instantly succumbed to
them and died. The trial court convicted the accused under section 302 of IPC. The
conviction was appealed before the Bombay High Court. In the appeal, the defence was
insanity under Section 84 of IPC was taken help of as the counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant contended that accused started moving inside and outside the house in a naked
condition which is not a normal act.
Judgment: The court held that the appellant - accused has not adduced any evidence on the
point that, he was suffering from unsoundness of mind prior to the incident, at the time of
incident or thereafter so as to prove the same on preponderance of probability. Hence, the
conviction of the trial court was upheld.

Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Sheshrao Sonaji Jadhav on 21 December, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Facts: The accused was suffering from constant fits and therefore undergoing doing
treatment. Due to the insanity of her husband the deceased was residing at her maternal house
and just 12 days before the incident she had resumed cohabitation with her husband. As she
stayed at her maternal house for long period, the accused used to assault her. On 06.12.2000,
deceased Kamalbai due to fear of her husband was proceeding to her maternal house, hence
the accused had confined her in the house. The accused and his wife were the only persons
residing in the house. On 7.12.2000, the deceased was lying unconscious and accused was
sleeping by her side. The trial court ruled that although the murder of the deceased was
committed by the accused under section 302 how he was not held liable due to the defence of
insanity under section 84.

Judgment: The Court upheld the acquittal sentenced by the trial court as there was enough
evidence on record to show that the accused suffered from unsoundness of mind.

Kerala High Court

Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2020

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

Facts: The accused murdered his mother, wife and daughter, by inflicting injuries with a knife
and then attempted to commit suicide. The incident happened on 20/10/2008 at 12 noon in
the house of accused, where he was living with his mother, wife and daughter. The accused
was convicted by the trial court for offences under sections 302 and 309 of IPC. The appeal
was filed before the Kerala High Court. It was contended by the appellants that Even
assuming that the accused had committed the crime, he cannot be punished as he is entitled
for the benefit of exception under Section 84 of IPC, as he was suffering from mental
disorder at the relevant time and he was unaware of the consequences.
Judgment: The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that the claim under Section
84 of IPC has not been proved by the defence and hence, such a contention is not available.
Therefore, the decision of the trial court was upheld.